Re: Diamondback bites, fails to embrace Fuctional Programming concepts
From: Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] (velthuis_at_gmail.com)
Date: 09/14/04
- Next message: Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]: "Re: Diamondback bites, fails to embrace Fuctional Programming concepts"
- Previous message: Kristofer Skaug: "Re: Kylix? Borland announced Kylix community project"
- In reply to: Michael Pence: "Re: Diamondback bites, fails to embrace Fuctional Programming concepts"
- Next in thread: Eric Grange: "Re: Diamondback bites, fails to embrace Fuctional Programming concepts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 14 Sep 2004 14:58:09 -0700
Michael Pence wrote:
> Right. Your code is equivalent. My point is that if the for...in
> construct is to save writing those tiresome blocks of code for
> traversing collections, why not take the next logical step and save
> more code by adding a where clause?
But it does not save more code. There is no big difference (except for
syntax) between
for a in B where condition do
and
for A in B do
if condition then
The for...in loop saves you from having to get and set up an
IEnumerator and using MoveNext. The where clause does nothing of the
kind.
-- Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] "Only one man ever understood me, and he didn't understand me." -- GW Hegel.
- Next message: Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]: "Re: Diamondback bites, fails to embrace Fuctional Programming concepts"
- Previous message: Kristofer Skaug: "Re: Kylix? Borland announced Kylix community project"
- In reply to: Michael Pence: "Re: Diamondback bites, fails to embrace Fuctional Programming concepts"
- Next in thread: Eric Grange: "Re: Diamondback bites, fails to embrace Fuctional Programming concepts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
