On Wednesday, 25 December 2013 at 12:43:05 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
Did you try something like:
for(immutable i; 0..MAX_N)
a[i] = i;
too? One thing to note is that, technically, i is a _copy_ of
the iterated number. So things like
for(i; 0..5)
i++;
have no effect (it will loop 5 times regardless). Indeed, in
your case, this could be optimized out, but in general the
extra instruction is technically correct. I don't know if
making i immutable would change things, but it might give the
compiler enough of a hint to do the correct optimization here.
Thanks, that sounded reasonable. Still, in this particular case,
the generated assembly remained the same.
