https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12488

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> ---
I don't think this makes any sense. If we were forced to either write auto or ref, then yeah this would actually save us from some bugs, e.g. iterating over a struct array by value (a very common bug IMHO):

-----
struct S { int x; }

void main()
{
    S[] arr;
    arr.length = 2;

    foreach (s; arr)
        s.x = 10;

    // fails
    assert(arr == [S(10), S(10)]);
}
-----

In this case if we were force to use 'auto' or 'ref' then this bug would be easier to catch.

But adding support for 'auto' without requiring a change will do us no good. People will start questioning "why is there an auto if it doesn't do anything", and it's always a bad idea to have two syntaxes that do the exact same thing. It will only cause confusion.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12488

Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Attachment #1341|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #3 from Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> ---
Created attachment 1387
  --> https://issues.dlang.org/attachment.cgi?id=1387&action=edit
new foreach-auto patch

2Andrej Mitrovic: i completely agree that 'auto' must be forced, but we can't do this without breaking the code. hence i made 'auto' optional.

and i have a brand new patch, which allows even more useless things! now it allows things like:

  foreach (; ...)
  foreach (auto; ...)
  foreach (n, auto; ...)

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12488

Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Attachment #1387|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #4 from Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> ---
Created attachment 1388
  --> https://issues.dlang.org/attachment.cgi?id=1388&action=edit
updated patch

patch updated. now things like "foreach (int n; [0, 1, 2, 3]) {}" are allowed.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12488

--- Comment #5 from Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> ---
i meant "foreach (int; [0, 1, 2, 3]) {}"

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12488

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P2                          |P4

--