• Matthew Wilson (24/24) Mar 27 2003 Any progress on this. It'd be real nice.
• anderson (8/32) Mar 27 2003 supporting
• Jon Allen (5/15) Mar 27 2003 Special cases are bad, if we did it for foreach should do it for for too...
• Walter (4/28) Mar 27 2003 I'm going to do foreach, but the syntax is a bit up in the air right now...

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:

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?

"anderson" <anderson badmama.com.au> writes:

"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.

"Jon Allen" <jallen minotstateu.edu> writes:

 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.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

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?