Proposal: "inout" in for loops

Evolution Discussion
1

Examples:

var x=[1,2,3]
for inout v in x {
   v++
}

for inout d in d1, d2, d3 { // can’t use list here as it would result in copying of dictionaries
      d.removeAll()
}

2

Hi Amir,

Please read up on the semantics of for-in loops & generators, and if you think this is a good idea, then propose the actual language changes necessary to provide this behavior. Thanks,

-Chris

···

On Dec 11, 2015, at 5:12 AM, Amir Michail via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Examples:

var x=[1,2,3]
for inout v in x {
   v++
}

for inout d in d1, d2, d3 { // can’t use list here as it would result in copying of dictionaries
      d.removeAll()
}

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

3

An 'inout' for loop would be handy for some use cases, but would probably depend on a MutableCollectionType at minimum rather than any arbitrary SequenceType. You can implement a mutable version of 'forEach' as a higher-order function extension on MutableCollectionType today:

extension MutableCollectionType {
  mutating func mutableForEach(body: (inout Generator.Element) throws -> ()) rethrows {
    for index in indices {
      try body(&self[index])
    }
  }
}

var x = [1,2,3]

x.mutableForEach { (inout y: Int) in y += 1 }

print(x)

If you want to propose this as a language feature, you could use a library implementation like this as a starting point for proposing how it would work.

-Joe

···

On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:50 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hi Amir,

Please read up on the semantics of for-in loops & generators, and if you think this is a good idea, then propose the actual language changes necessary to provide this behavior. Thanks,

-Chris

4

Interesting observation from when Doug and I were discussing this: index + subscript is also cheaper than generators for non-mutating for loops, at least for certain kinds of Sequence. At the very least, it requires less heroism from the mandatory optimizer to get C-like performance at -O0. And the code pattern would *very* closely parallel what we would presumably emit for an mutating for loop.

John.

···

On Dec 14, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

On Dec 11, 2015, at 11:50 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:

Hi Amir,

Please read up on the semantics of for-in loops & generators, and if you think this is a good idea, then propose the actual language changes necessary to provide this behavior. Thanks,

-Chris

An 'inout' for loop would be handy for some use cases, but would probably depend on a MutableCollectionType at minimum rather than any arbitrary SequenceType. You can implement a mutable version of 'forEach' as a higher-order function extension on MutableCollectionType today:

extension MutableCollectionType {
  mutating func mutableForEach(body: (inout Generator.Element) throws -> ()) rethrows {
    for index in indices {
      try body(&self[index])
    }
  }
}

var x = [1,2,3]

x.mutableForEach { (inout y: Int) in y += 1 }

print(x)

If you want to propose this as a language feature, you could use a library implementation like this as a starting point for proposing how it would work.