Yes, that’s a good idea! I like this even better than the original proposal.
- Seth > On Jan 28, 2015, at 1:59 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Cameron McCormack <c...@mcc.id.au > <mailto:c...@mcc.id.au>> wrote: > >> Xidorn Quan: >>> I asked a question in #developers that what is the best way to reversely >>> iterating nsTArray, and there are some suggestions: >> >> For cases where we don’t need to know the index of the array, can we >> support something like: >> >> for (e : array.ReverseIterator()) { ... } >> >> or: >> >> for (e : ReverseIterator(array)) { ... } >> >> (I notice that boost::adaptors::reversed is something like this.) >> >> There’s a danger that it’s not clear what happens if you modify the >> array while using the iterator, but it’s probably no worse than using >> the indexes that would come from ReverseIntegerRange. > > > Hmm. It reminds me that we might not need a ReverseIntegerRange at all. We > can have a Range, and a Reversed, then combine them to achieve > ReversedRange. We can make Reversed works with nsTArray as well :) > > - Xidorn > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org <mailto:dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform> _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
