On 16.10.21 01:12, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 2:38 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> - non-lexical variable lifetimes (probably not happening)
> 
> It's already implemented for @live.

(Also, I want it based on the types of the involved values, not based on a non-modular function annotation.)

On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 23:05:03 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 14.11.21 22:54, Dr Machine Code wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 21:38:48 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> On 10/11/21 5:59 PM, Atila Neves wrote:
>>>> ...
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> * Features you'd like to see in D
>>>
>>> - built-in tuples/products with standard syntax
...
> I started this:
> https://github.com/tgehr/DIPs/blob/tuple-syntax/DIPs/DIP1xxx-tg.md
> https://github.com/tgehr/dmd/commits/tuple-syntax
>
> Unfortunately, I was too busy at the time to finish the implementation, and I am not fully satisfied with the proposal. Probably I'd want to add at least static opIndex and static opSlice to it. Another issue is that it slightly expands `alias this` and I am not sure whether that's a direction Walter is willing to invest in at this point.

Just WOW.

What would be needed to get you working on this again?

On 15.11.21 10:29, Imperatorn wrote:
> On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 00:49:17 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
>> On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 23:51:00 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 21:13:59 UTC, Dr Machine Code wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 18:59:29 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>>>>> foreach_reverse - worst "feature" mankind has produced
>>>>
>>>> why is it that bad? lol
>>>
>>> It's just so ugly 😅
>>
>> The keyword isn't pretty, but it's useful, easy to understand, and actually works correctly.
>>
>> I'm sure you can think of something worse if you really try...
> 
> Well, obviously :)
> 
> It was more of a joke, but it's still pretty cringe to see it

The reason it exists is that reverse iteration over unsigned types is notoriously error prone. I think it's pretty nice to have this built in, knowing that it will be directly transformed into a simple for loop even in debug builds. It also allows easily reversing the order of iteration of any foreach loop, no matter which form. In particular, there is `static foreach_reverse`.

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 12:41:51 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 15.11.21 10:29, Imperatorn wrote:
>> On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 00:49:17 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
>>> [...]
>> 
>> Well, obviously :)
>> 
>> It was more of a joke, but it's still pretty cringe to see it
>
> The reason it exists is that reverse iteration over unsigned types is notoriously error prone. I think it's pretty nice to have this built in, knowing that it will be directly transformed into a simple for loop even in debug builds. It also allows easily reversing the order of iteration of any foreach loop, no matter which form. In particular, there is `static foreach_reverse`.

What's wrong about retro? Too retro :D

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 14:02:42 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>
> What's wrong about retro? Too retro :D

std.range.retro is honestly just a bad name. It should have been `reversed`, or maybe `reverser`.