Thread overview | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
March 27, 2003 foreach | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Any progress on this. It'd be real nice. Has the format been decided yet? I would suggest that as well as supporting char[] s = "Some string"; foreach (c in s) c = c + 2; it also supports specification of the type of the element, to support conversions class Y { void DoSomething() { } } class X { int i; Y y; operator Y() // I don't know what the syntax for user-defined operator methods is. } X[] arr = new X[10]; foreach (Y y in arr) y.DoSomething(); Make sense? |
March 27, 2003 Re: foreach | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew Wilson | "Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b5ul7c$17q2$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Any progress on this. It'd be real nice. > > Has the format been decided yet? I would suggest that as well as supporting > > char[] s = "Some string"; > > foreach (c in s) > c = c + 2; > > it also supports specification of the type of the element, to support conversions > > class Y > { > void DoSomething() > { > } > } > > class X > { > int i; > Y y; > > operator Y() // I don't know what the syntax for user-defined operator > methods is. > } > > X[] arr = new X[10]; > > foreach (Y y in arr) > y.DoSomething(); > > > Make sense? > > Parhaps, foreach could also act like a with startement.... X[] arr = new X[10]; foreach (Y y in arr) .DoSomething(); Of course for nested loops the implicit form could be used. |
March 27, 2003 Re: foreach | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew Wilson | I'm going to do foreach, but the syntax is a bit up in the air right now. "Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b5ul7c$17q2$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Any progress on this. It'd be real nice. > > Has the format been decided yet? I would suggest that as well as supporting > > char[] s = "Some string"; > > foreach (c in s) > c = c + 2; > > it also supports specification of the type of the element, to support conversions > > class Y > { > void DoSomething() > { > } > } > > class X > { > int i; > Y y; > > operator Y() // I don't know what the syntax for user-defined operator > methods is. > } > > X[] arr = new X[10]; > > foreach (Y y in arr) > y.DoSomething(); > > > Make sense? > > > > |
March 28, 2003 Re: foreach | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to anderson | > > foreach (Y y in arr) > > y.DoSomething(); > > > > > > Make sense? Sounds yummy to me :-) > Parhaps, foreach could also act like a with startement.... > > X[] arr = new X[10]; > > foreach (Y y in arr) > .DoSomething(); > > Of course for nested loops the implicit form could be used. Special cases are bad, if we did it for foreach should do it for for too, but we can't really, because the c-style for is much to flexible for anything as straightforward as that. Not to mention the ugliness of nested loops. I say we just explicitly write "with" when we want a with. |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation