Thread overview
[Issue 4508] tuples should be indexable with foreach over range
Jul 27, 2014
Vlad Levenfeld
July 27, 2014
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4508

Vlad Levenfeld <vlevenfeld@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vlevenfeld@gmail.com

--
October 11, 2014
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4508

bearophile_hugs@eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bearophile_hugs@eml.cc

--- Comment #1 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc ---
I think this is a bad idea, in this form. So I suggest to close this issue.

I prefer this syntax much more:

static foreach(i; 0..tup.length) {

--
April 20
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4508

Nick Treleaven <nick@geany.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |nick@geany.org

--- Comment #2 from Nick Treleaven <nick@geany.org> ---
`foreach (e; seq)` works at compile time for an AliasSeq, so I don't see why
`foreach (i; low..high)` can't make `i` known at compile-time if the bounds are
known.

I think we should rename this bug to apply to any CT-knowable index in a ForeachRangeStatement.

--
April 20
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4508

ag0aep6g@gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ag0aep6g@gmail.com

--- Comment #3 from ag0aep6g@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Nick Treleaven from comment #2)
> `foreach (e; seq)` works at compile time for an AliasSeq, so I don't see why
> `foreach (i; low..high)` can't make `i` known at compile-time if the bounds
> are known.

Can `i` be made known at compile-time without unrolling the loop (in the binary)? Surely we don't want to unroll every loop that can possibly be unrolled. For example, it would be very surprising if the compiler unrolled a loop like `foreach (i; 0 .. uint.max) writeln(i);`, generating gigabytes of machine code.

--
April 22
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4508

--- Comment #4 from Nick Treleaven <nick@geany.org> ---
In that case, perhaps we could use `static foreach` as in comment 1.

--