3 ms·

Ah, the problem of detecting the last (or the first) element and treating it specially: bool first = true; [:expand(nonstatic_data_members_of(^

Ah, the problem of detecting the last (or the first) element and treating it specially: bool first = true; [:expand(nonstatic_data_members_of(^^T)):] >> [&]<auto nsdm>{ if (not first) { *out++ = ','; *out++ = ' '; } first = false; out = std::format_to(out, ".{}={}", identifier_of(nsdm), m.[:nsdm:]); }; I really wish there were a for/for-each variant that straightforwardly supported interspersed actions, something like this: [:expand(nonstatic_data_members_of(^^T)):] >> std::make_tuple([&]<auto nsdm>{ out = std::format_to(out, ".{}={}", identifier_of(nsdm), m.[:nsdm:]); }, [&]{ *out++ = ','; *out++ = ' '; }); An actual for-loop could also get a simple extension (which is quite easy to compile efficiently) but I can't figure out an intuitive enough syntax: for (int i = 0; i < 101; i++) { std::cout << i; } then { std::cout << ", "; } is a bit fishy because the "then" block (can't call it "else", obviously) technically happens before the main loop body (i.e. inside it, the values of i would be 1, 2, ..., 100) but writing it before the main body would be even more confusing. Any suggestions? I'd really like to figure this feature out because I personally find it more useful than the "else block, but for the loops" feature.

saurik 2y ago
It happens before the main loop body but it doesn't happen before the first loop, and it happens after the increment, so I frankly read it initially with skeptical eyes but then felt like it was more intuitive than it was being made out to be? (And FWIW, I am someone who has used for-else on occasion, yet have never found it intuitive.)
wrs 2y ago
My favorite way of handling this particular case (in any language) is to express the elements as a sequence (preferably a lazy one that doesn’t actually allocate) and use whatever the stdlib calls “join” (my favorite name is Haskell’s “intercalate”) to insert the delimiters. I haven’t used C++ in decades, but Rust typically makes this pretty easy to write, and low-cost.
pbsd 2y ago
Normal for loops can't really make that work, they're too general, but range for loops plausibly could. Something like for(auto&& e : range) { std::print("{}" e); join { std::print(", "); } } where join {} is effectively syntax sugar for if(std::next(__first) != __last) {}. The fmt library makes this sort of task easier by providing the join adaptor; this example would become fmt::print("{}", fmt::join(range, ", "));
leni536 2y ago
int i = 0; while (true) { cout << i; ++i; if (i == 101) { break; } cout << ", "; }
- Joker_vD 2y ago
  That's too much branching. int i = 0; goto main_part; do { cout << ", "; main_part: cout << i; label_for_continue: // yeah, what about "continue"? i++; } while (i <= 100); That's what most for-loops get transformed to during the translation anyhow (with the condition check on the bottom), but writing this by hand? Ugh. Edit: actually, looking at Godbolt, it seems that gcc compiles your suggestion into exactly this shape, while clang splits the first iteration out, into something equivalent to cout << 0; for (int i = 1; i < 101; i++) { cout << ", "; cout << i; } Hmm.

saurik 2y ago

It happens before the main loop body but it doesn't happen before the first loop, and it happens after the increment, so I frankly read it initially with skeptical eyes but then felt like it was more intuitive than it was being made out to be? (And FWIW, I am someone who has used for-else on occasion, yet have never found it intuitive.)

wrs 2y ago

My favorite way of handling this particular case (in any language) is to express the elements as a sequence (preferably a lazy one that doesn’t actually allocate) and use whatever the stdlib calls “join” (my favorite name is Haskell’s “intercalate”) to insert the delimiters. I haven’t used C++ in decades, but Rust typically makes this pretty easy to write, and low-cost.

pbsd 2y ago

Normal for loops can't really make that work, they're too general, but range for loops plausibly could. Something like for(auto&& e : range) { std::print("{}" e); join { std::print(", "); } } where join {} is effectively syntax sugar for if(std::next(__first) != __last) {}. The fmt library makes this sort of task easier by providing the join adaptor; this example would become fmt::print("{}", fmt::join(range, ", "));

leni536 2y ago

int i = 0; while (true) { cout << i; ++i; if (i == 101) { break; } cout << ", "; }

Joker_vD 2y ago
That's too much branching. int i = 0; goto main_part; do { cout << ", "; main_part: cout << i; label_for_continue: // yeah, what about "continue"? i++; } while (i <= 100); That's what most for-loops get transformed to during the translation anyhow (with the condition check on the bottom), but writing this by hand? Ugh. Edit: actually, looking at Godbolt, it seems that gcc compiles your suggestion into exactly this shape, while clang splits the first iteration out, into something equivalent to cout << 0; for (int i = 1; i < 101; i++) { cout << ", "; cout << i; } Hmm.