3 ms·
It guess it would require a different syntax, otherwise it may not be clear how it was desugared (runtime vs. compile). Then again, we already have for loops,
by jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
It guess it would require a different syntax, otherwise it may not be clear how it was desugared (runtime vs. compile).
Then again, we already have for loops, range for loops, the ranges library, the std algorithms, the parallel algorithms... I don't think people would welcome yet another way of writing things, but who knows...
- uryga 6y ago> otherwise it may not be clear how it was desugared (runtime vs. compile) but does that really matter, as long it has well-defined semantics? even for the compile-time case, it's up to the compiler/optimizer to decide whether `(xs + ...)` ends up as multiple ADDs or one ADD in a loop – you're only guaranteed that it's observable behavior will be `xs[0] + xs[1] + xs[2] + ...`, no?
- jfkebwjsbx 6y agoYes, it does matter. When you are programming in a language like C++, you want to understand what the compiler generates for a given abstraction.