From http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html#ForeachStatement, "Foreach over Structs and Classes with Ranges".

I read this as the Range design is a part of the language now. Is this correct?

And is the spec a bit out of date in the examples?
It says foreach-/reverse translates to

for( auto __r = range; !__r.empty; __r.next /* or __r.retreat */)
	auto e = __r.head; // or __r.toe

Should this be the following?
for( auto __r = range; !__r.empty; __r.popFront /* or __r.popBack */)
	auto e = __r.front; // or __r.back

On Sunday 15 August 2010 10:12:06 simendsjo wrote:
>  From http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html#ForeachStatement,
> "Foreach over Structs and Classes with Ranges".
> 
> I read this as the Range design is a part of the language now. Is this correct?
> 
> And is the spec a bit out of date in the examples?
> It says foreach-/reverse translates to
> 
> for( auto __r = range; !__r.empty; __r.next /* or __r.retreat */)
> 	auto e = __r.head; // or __r.toe
> 
> Should this be the following?
> for( auto __r = range; !__r.empty; __r.popFront /* or __r.popBack */)
> 	auto e = __r.front; // or __r.back

Those names are indeed out of date. It's another thing that needs to be fixed in the docs.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 15.08.2010 23:58, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday 15 August 2010 10:12:06 simendsjo wrote:
>>    From http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html#ForeachStatement,
>> "Foreach over Structs and Classes with Ranges".
>>
>> I read this as the Range design is a part of the language now. Is this
>> correct?
>>
>> And is the spec a bit out of date in the examples?
>> It says foreach-/reverse translates to
>>
>> for( auto __r = range; !__r.empty; __r.next /* or __r.retreat */)
>> 	auto e = __r.head; // or __r.toe
>>
>> Should this be the following?
>> for( auto __r = range; !__r.empty; __r.popFront /* or __r.popBack */)
>> 	auto e = __r.front; // or __r.back
>
> Those names are indeed out of date. It's another thing that needs to be fixed in
> the docs.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4649