@Marcin Jaczewski

Allow code like:
>
> for (int i : std::views::iota(1, 10))
> std::cout << i << ' ';
>
> Other versions you can create helpers in a similar way.


This example requires to include a header instead of being an intrinsic
property of the for loop. Also is way more verbose than for (int i = 1 : 10) my
hope is to make things simpler and easier to read without losing
functionality.

@Jonathan Wakely

You can do this today with a structured binding:

  for (auto [b,e,o] = std::tuple(in, in + size, out); b != e; ++b, ++o)
> *o = std::tolower(*b);


True, but isn't creating a tuple to just decompose it excessively verbose?
Not to mention the need to include a header; also we lose the expressivity
of separating each declaration, on my opinion each part separated on
different declarations implies intentionality, also more control on the
resulting type, i.e:

template <auto size>
> void lcase(const char (&in)[size], char (&out)[size])
> {
> for (const char *b = in; const char *const e = in + size; char *o =
> out; b != e; ++b, ++o) // Three different explicit types
> *o = std::tolower(*b);
> }



Missatge de Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> del dia dl., 10 de febr. 2025
a les 15:31:

>
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 14:18, Pau Miquel Montequi Hernandez via
> Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>> More flexible for loop initialization, allowing multiple init statements:
>>
>>> template <auto size>
>>> void lcase(const char (&in)[size], char (&out)[size])
>>> {
>>> for (auto b = in, e = in + size; auto o = out; b != e; ++b, ++o)
>>>
>>
> You can do this today with a structured binding:
>
> for (auto [b,e,o] = std::tuple(in, in + size, out); b != e; ++b, ++o)
>
>
>> *o = std::tolower(*b);
>>> }
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Pablo Miguel Montequi Hernández.