I dunno what the poster's intent was.

On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 00:05 +0000, AJG wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> >import std.stdio;
> >void main() {
> >  char[] string = "abcdfgh";
> >  foreach(char c; string)
> >    {
> >      if (c == 'e') goto found;
> >    }
> >  writefln("not found");
> > found:
> >  writefln("done");
> >}
> 
> I'm guessing you wanna throw a return in there. Otherwise the "not found" case also reaches the "found" case. No?
> 
> --AJG.
> 
> 

> Fantastic! This would be simply awesome. It would pave the way for the
> expressionisation of all constructs just like current GNU C extensions
> allow. A
> vote for expression-foreach is a vote for the future.

Holy smokes. I just read through the GNU C extension list. Those guys make
Willy Wonka look like an amateur :P
I wonder what feedback they've gotten about some of those ideas.

Hi,

>> Fantastic! This would be simply awesome. It would pave the way for the
>> expressionisation of all constructs just like current GNU C extensions
>> allow. A
>> vote for expression-foreach is a vote for the future.
>
>Holy smokes. I just read through the GNU C extension list. Those guys make Willy Wonka look like an amateur :P

Yes indeed. When I started using GNU C (and the exts) I became spoiled for life. Going back to even C99 is a painful proposition.

>I wonder what feedback they've gotten about some of those ideas.

I suspect it's been mostly positive for two reasons:

a) They are all toggleable (specifically or all at once). So you can use them or completely ignore them. You can also force ANSI/C89/99 compatibility if you want.

b) They keep churning 'em out. ;)

I really, really hope Walter takes a look at them and invests time in implementing the best of them in D. A particularly easy one I suggested a while back was omitting the middle operand in the ternary operator.

Expression-foreach would be a great step in that direction, so I definitely support it.

Cheers,
--AJG.

How about foreach...else statement? I think it is an elegant solution.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:57:32 +1100, Ben Hinkle <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote:
>> But it would be nice if there was a more elegant solution. Something like:
>>
>> foreach(char c; string)
>> {
>>   if(c == 'e') break;
>> }
>> overflow
>> {
>>   //not found
>> }
>
> Another option is to make foreach return the value of the opApply (or the
> builtin loop if there is no opApply) and turn foreach into an expression
> instead of a statement. So for example
>   int found = foreach(char c; string){
>     if (c == 'e') break;
>   };
>   if (found) {
>     // found 'e' in string
>   } else {
>     //. not found case
>   }
>
> Note making foreach an expression would break existing code since the
> trailing ; would be needed to turn the expression into a statement. It also
> might be confusing that people might think they could have "return"
> statements in the foreach body instead of "break". People would also
> probably want to return values from the foreach like the index at the break.
>
> Given those problems if making foreach an expression is too wacky the result
> can be stored in an implicit variable _foreachAborted or something:
>   foreach(char c; string){
>     if (c == 'e') break;
>   }
>   if (_foreachAborted) {
>     // found 'e' in string
>   } else {
>     //. not found case
>   }
>
>

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:30:23 +1100, Ilya Zaitseff <sark7@mail333.com> wrote:
> How about foreach...else statement? I think it is an elegant solution.

To me 'else' implies "if there is nothing in the container" whereas I want "if you reach the end of the container", having else do what I want would be confusing.. or maybe just to me :)

Regan

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:57:32 +1100, Ben Hinkle <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote:
>>> But it would be nice if there was a more elegant solution. Something like:
>>>
>>> foreach(char c; string)
>>> {
>>>   if(c == 'e') break;
>>> }
>>> overflow
>>> {
>>>   //not found
>>> }
>>
>> Another option is to make foreach return the value of the opApply (or the
>> builtin loop if there is no opApply) and turn foreach into an expression
>> instead of a statement. So for example
>>   int found = foreach(char c; string){
>>     if (c == 'e') break;
>>   };
>>   if (found) {
>>     // found 'e' in string
>>   } else {
>>     //. not found case
>>   }
>>
>> Note making foreach an expression would break existing code since the
>> trailing ; would be needed to turn the expression into a statement. It also
>> might be confusing that people might think they could have "return"
>> statements in the foreach body instead of "break". People would also
>> probably want to return values from the foreach like the index at the break.
>>
>> Given those problems if making foreach an expression is too wacky the result
>> can be stored in an implicit variable _foreachAborted or something:
>>   foreach(char c; string){
>>     if (c == 'e') break;
>>   }
>>   if (_foreachAborted) {
>>     // found 'e' in string
>>   } else {
>>     //. not found case
>>   }
>>
>>
>

In article <opsu7ymedr23k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz>, Regan Heath says...
>
>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:30:23 +1100, Ilya Zaitseff <sark7@mail333.com> wrote:
>> How about foreach...else statement? I think it is an elegant solution.
>
>To me 'else' implies "if there is nothing in the container" whereas I want "if you reach the end of the container", having else do what I want would be confusing.. or maybe just to me :)

No, I agree. My suggestion suggestion a while ago interpreted it just like that.

foreach (item; array)
// Array not empty.
else
// Array is empty.

Cheers,
--AJG.


>
>Regan
>
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:57:32 +1100, Ben Hinkle <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote:
>>>> But it would be nice if there was a more elegant solution. Something like:
>>>>
>>>> foreach(char c; string)
>>>> {
>>>>   if(c == 'e') break;
>>>> }
>>>> overflow
>>>> {
>>>>   //not found
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Another option is to make foreach return the value of the opApply (or
>>> the
>>> builtin loop if there is no opApply) and turn foreach into an expression
>>> instead of a statement. So for example
>>>   int found = foreach(char c; string){
>>>     if (c == 'e') break;
>>>   };
>>>   if (found) {
>>>     // found 'e' in string
>>>   } else {
>>>     //. not found case
>>>   }
>>>
>>> Note making foreach an expression would break existing code since the
>>> trailing ; would be needed to turn the expression into a statement. It
>>> also
>>> might be confusing that people might think they could have "return"
>>> statements in the foreach body instead of "break". People would also
>>> probably want to return values from the foreach like the index at the
>>> break.
>>>
>>> Given those problems if making foreach an expression is too wacky the
>>> result
>>> can be stored in an implicit variable _foreachAborted or something:
>>>   foreach(char c; string){
>>>     if (c == 'e') break;
>>>   }
>>>   if (_foreachAborted) {
>>>     // found 'e' in string
>>>   } else {
>>>     //. not found case
>>>   }
>>>
>>>
>>
>

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 04:15:38 +0000 (UTC), AJG wrote:

> foreach (item; array)
> // Array not empty.
> else
> // Array is empty.

This would be useful, as it saves me declaring a loop index just for checking the first or last iteration, which is something I do frequently, ...

 foreach( <itemdecl>; <arrayref> )
   on first <statement> // First iteration only
   on last <statement>  // Final iteration only
 else <statement>    // Only when there are zero iterations

Example:

  foreach( CustRec c; CustomerList )
    on first {
       Lineno = 0;
       Totals = 0;
       Pageno = 0;
       InitializeReport();
    }

    Lineno++;
    GenPageHeading(Lineno, Pageno);
    GenDetailLine(Lineno, c, Totals);

    on last {
        GenFooter(Totals);
        CloseReport();
    }
  else
     Msg("No customers on file");

Not a big thing, just a nice-to-have.

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
9/08/2005 2:28:36 PM

Hi,

>> foreach (item; array)
>> // Array not empty.
>> else
>> // Array is empty.
>
>This would be useful, as it saves me declaring a loop index just for checking the first or last iteration, which is something I do frequently, Not a big thing, just a nice-to-have.

Then, by all means, vote for it*:

http://www.all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/

* Although there hasn't been shown a positive correlation between the D wishlist and the D language. It functions more like a salve. ;)

Cheers,
--AJG.