https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5691

bb.temp@gmx.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |bb.temp@gmx.com
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5691

ag0aep6g@gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
                 CC|                            |ag0aep6g@gmail.com
         Resolution|INVALID                     |---

--- Comment #14 from ag0aep6g@gmail.com ---
Reopening.

If this gets closed, I think it should be closed as WONTFIX, not as INVALID. The request itself is not unreasonable. The argument against it is that the added complexity isn't worth the functionality.

Generally, please give your reasoning when closing issues, especially when you haven't taken part in the discussion.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5691

Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--- Comment #15 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> ---
Sorry. (I think it was me who closed it - how can I see who did?) Yes, that's
the reason - at some point we've got to pare down what we support. Reclosing
(sic) as WONTFIX.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5691

--- Comment #16 from ag0aep6g@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Andrei Alexandrescu from comment #15)
> Sorry. (I think it was me who closed it - how can I see who did?)

It wasn't you. bb.temp closed it without comment. You can see it on the
"History" page:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_activity.cgi?id=5691
The link to that page is in the right column of the issue details, in
parentheses behind the "Modified" date. Or just search the page for "History".

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5691

--- Comment #17 from bb.temp@gmx.com ---
(In reply to ag0aep6g from comment #16)
> (In reply to Andrei Alexandrescu from comment #15)
> > Sorry. (I think it was me who closed it - how can I see who did?)
> 
> It wasn't you. bb.temp closed it without comment. You can see it on the
> "History" page:
> https://issues.dlang.org/show_activity.cgi?id=5691
> The link to that page is in the right column of the issue details, in
> parentheses behind the "Modified" date. Or just search the page for
> "History".

Based on the previous argumentation (see J.M.Davis) and the time elapsed since the report, I took the initiative to close. If it's an error, sorry.

It's off topic but the fact is that there is a lot of phobos issues whose validity is discutable. Among the old reports, most of the invalid/already-fixed ones are closed now. Time to stop my initiative to find more of them, I guess.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5691

--- Comment #18 from Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> ---
FWIW, I agree with Andrei here (now). For one thing, walkLength would have to add the complexity of trying to infer the right parameters to pass to foreach.

opApply has some usefulness, but much of it has been eroded. There are only a couple of advantages left: 1. ability to use recursion during iteration, 2. overloading based on loop variable types.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5691

Basile-z <b2.temp@gmx.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|b2.temp@gmx.com             |

--