Eric Niebler wrote:
Daniel Wallin wrote:
xxx::for_each(cont, _1 += 2);
IMO C++ isn't missing a loop construct, it's missing a lambda construct.
IMO, C++ is missing a foreach construct *and* a lambda construct. :-) When the loop body is non-trivial, writing it as a lambda would make the code hard to follow.
Why? I don't see why there should be much of a difference. foreach (x, v) { ... } vs for_each(v, lambda(x) { // or whatever a lambda syntax would look like ... });
I shudder at the thought of a lambda that takes up more than a few lines. A foreach construct would make it easier to read, in that case.
But then again, if we had a type inference mechanism and a range library the for-loop is easy enough: for (auto r = range(v); r; ++r) { } I would agree that there would be need for a simpler loop head if we had to write every trivial loop on our own, but we have standard algorithms. That said; there might be need for your macro right now, since we don't have auto or lambda yet. :) -- Daniel Wallin