I agree. Remi
On October 6, 2017 1:10:03 AM GMT+02:00, Brian Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: >Yes, seems reasonable. > >On 10/5/2017 1:21 AM, Tagir Valeev wrote: >> Hello! >> >> I think underscore could be allowed as an enhanced for parameter. In >> rare cases it's necessary to iterate over Iterable without using the >> elements like here: >> >> long countElements(Iterable<?> iterable) { >> long count = 0; >> for(Object _ : iterable) count++; >> return count; >> } >> >> Here we have a place where we're syntactically forced to declare a >> variable, but we don't need one. Similarly to a catch block this >> perfectly fits the underscore use cases. This would also help to >> perform code static analysis. It's common for IDEs to warn if a loop >> variable is unused (which could be a bug like another variable is >used >> instead by mistake). Using underscore we explicitly say that we don't >> need a variable here. In IntelliJ IDEA we suggest using an "ignored" >> name in such case, but it's still a valid name and can be used >> accidentally or clashed with another name. >> >> Sorry if this was already discussed, I wasn't able to find any public >> discussions on this topic. >> >> With best regards, >> Tagir Valeev. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
