• Jesse Phillips (23/23) Nov 06 2011 I'm sure if this was changed there would be other interesting behavior,
• Timon Gehr (6/29) Nov 07 2011 Expected, s has value semantics.
• Jesse Phillips (4/10) Nov 07 2011 Yes thank you. I was just hoping to have access to _s inside the loop.

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+d gmail.com> writes:

I'm sure if this was changed there would be other interesting behavior, 
such as arrays being consumed. And suggestions other than

    for(S s; !s.empty, s.popFront())...

Example:

    void main() {
        S s;

        foreach(i; s) {
            assert(i == s.popCount); // Fail
        }

        assert(s.popCount == 10); // Fail
    }

    struct S {
        size_t popCount;

        auto empty() {
            if(popCount > 9)
                return true;
            return false;
        }
        auto front() { return popCount; }
        auto popFront() {
            popCount++;
        }
    }

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 11/07/2011 12:26 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 I'm sure if this was changed there would be other interesting behavior,
 such as arrays being consumed. And suggestions other than

      for(S s; !s.empty, s.popFront())...

 Example:

      void main() {
          S s;

          foreach(i; s) {
              assert(i == s.popCount); // Fail
          }

          assert(s.popCount == 10); // Fail
      }

      struct S {
          size_t popCount;

          auto empty() {
              if(popCount>  9)
                  return true;
              return false;
          }
          auto front() { return popCount; }
          auto popFront() {
              popCount++;
          }
      }

Expected, s has value semantics.

for(S _s=s; !_s.empty(); _s.popFront()){
     auto i = _s.front();
     // assert(i == s.popCount()); // expected to fail.
}

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+d gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:52:19 +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:

 Expected, s has value semantics.
 
 for(S _s=s; !_s.empty(); _s.popFront()){
      auto i = _s.front();
      // assert(i == s.popCount()); // expected to fail.
 }

Yes thank you. I was just hoping to have access to _s inside the loop.

And yeah, it likely would break lots of code. Granted I kind of wish all 
ranges would be consumed unless specifying save().