Feedback and comments on ARM proposal
neal at gafter.com
Mon Mar 9 18:52:18 PDT 2009
The for-each construct generated less controversy or concern than the
ARM construct, as the desired semantics and the desugaring are much
more straightforward. Most of the discussion revolved around
extending it in various ways. The trickiest part was getting the
interfaces just right to allow maximal interoperability.
Regarding Iterator, the Iterable/Iterator ambiguity was a concern but
a minor point: we could have simply defined it as a compile-time error
to use such a type in a for-each loop. We were more concerned with
allowing the programmer access to the variable that's directly
manipulated by compiler-generated code, possibly undermining the
generated code's assumptions about the state of the Iterator.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Roel Spilker <r.spilker at gmail.com> wrote:
> A bit off-topic, and just out of curiosity: What is the reason the for-each
> cannot work on Iterators? Is it just the problem when both Iterable and
> Iterator are implemented, or were there other reasons as well?
>> At this point, I think only one name will be supported (close), so the
>> problem goes away. We went through the same conniptions with the for-each
>> statement (Does it work on Iterator as well as Iterable? What happens if
>> you implement both?).
More information about the coin-dev