November 19, 2009
Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.

Andrei
November 19, 2009
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.
>
> Andrei

Is it trouble with scopes and hygenic variable naming?

--bb
November 19, 2009
Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>> Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses
>> enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Is it trouble with scopes and hygenic variable naming?

Yah. I know we all think it's an interesting path to pursue, but we'd rather do a good design instead of hastily planting something we'll be sorry about later.

Andrei
November 19, 2009
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>>> Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses
>>> enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Is it trouble with scopes and hygenic variable naming?
> 
> Yah. I know we all think it's an interesting path to pursue, but we'd rather do a good design instead of hastily planting something we'll be sorry about later.
> 
> Andrei

If this is the reason, thanks for prioritizing good design over feature creep. : )
November 19, 2009
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:15:34 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.
> 
> Andrei

Just a clarification request. static foreach will be part of the D2 spec but not implemented prior to release? I ask because post-D2 sounds like D3, but present in TDPL sounds like part of the spec for D2.
November 19, 2009
Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:15:34 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
>> Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses
>> enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Just a clarification request. static foreach will be part of the D2 spec but not implemented prior to release? I ask because post-D2 sounds like D3, but present in TDPL sounds like part of the spec for D2.

It will go away from TDPL, as much as it pains me (I had a killer example using it).

Andrei
November 19, 2009
Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
> Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.
> 

Please don't tell me this would solve the

foreach (member; __traits (allMembers, Class))
{
    foreach (overload; __traits (getVirtualFunctions, Class, member))
    {
        // do stuff
    }
}

problem. I've been waiting for this for ages ;)
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home