On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:11 PM Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 3/2/23 19:13, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 4:12 AM Frederick Virchanza Gotham via
> > Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:19 AM Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals
> >> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> I'm not gonna include a header file and use that horrible syntax.
> >>>>> Having an implicit variable called "__i" would be much better.
> >>>>
> >>>> What would it be called in an inner loop? __j?
> >>
> >>
> >> How about the outermost is __i, and then the next inner one is __j,
> >> then __k, until we get to __z. That would accommodate 18 nested loops.
> >>
> >> for ( auto &container : container_of_containers )
> >> {
> >> cout << __i << endl;
> >>
> >> for ( string &e : container )
> >> {
> >> cout << __i * __j << end;
> >>
> >> for ( char const c : e )
> >> {
> >> cout << __k << " originating from " << __i << endl;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >
> > Here's a better idea: let's not make confusing, trivial changes to the
> > language for the *minor* comfort of having an index generated by the
> > compiler. The difference between `for(string &e: container)` and
> > `for(auto[i, &e]: enumerate(container))` is too insubstantial to
> > bother with. And it's not like this isn't a common idiom or anything;
> > Python programmers do this all the time.
>
> Using `enumerate` requires one to include a nontrivial amount of code,
> most of which, I presume, is unrelated to `enumerate`. And it doesn't
> really provide that much convenience benefit in return. So given the
> choice, I would rather avoid including the header and define the counter
> variable myself.

C++23 will have module support for the standard library. `import std;`
will cost the same no matter how much stuff is in the standard
library, so that's no longer a relevant concern.