Loop Parse Reverse

[guest3456]

Wishing for a builtin way to traverse the loop backwards, perhaps adding an additional "R" parameter at the end of the param list

refs:
https://autohotkey.com/board/topic/7965 ... n-reverse/
https://autohotkey.com/board/topic/8118 ... backwards/

[jeeswg]

Although there is this for delimiter-separated lists (via StrSplit) and linear arrays (starting at 1) with no gaps:

Code: Select all

oArray := ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
Loop, % vIndex := oArray.Length()
	MsgBox, % oArray[vIndex--]

I would also very much welcome a way to loop through a linear/associative array in reverse. In particular, a way to safely delete keys during a for loop.

[guest3456]

Would rather avoid having to StrSplit to create a separate array.

Parsing loops use less memory than StringSplit (since StringSplit creates a permanent pseudo-array) and in most cases they are easier to use.

[jeeswg]

Fair point. Something like this would be especially useful for getting the last few lines/items in a massive list, a common request. Perhaps that's what you had in mind.

[nnnik]

Essentially an inversed iterator. It's especially useful since using Loop and accessing the array inside is a whole lot more costly than using an enumerator.
At least you will notice this if you have a larger number of entries.

[Masonjar13]

This deviates slightly, but is related: why do a number of languages choose to use for-loops for objects, rather than the traditional C[++] for-loop? It allows for custom increment steps, making it inversable and generally more flexible. I personally think it's the best loop approach. I suppose that could probably be done with current syntax via a function, but it wouldn't be as fast, certainly.

[nnnik]

Because it makes no sense.
Most of the objects in other languages have no integer keys - how do you plan to use a traditional C loop?
The final answer you will come to is always going to be the modern for loop going over an iterator.
I also believe that the traditional C++ loop is one of the best when it comes to procedural programming - however as soon as OOP comes into the play it is nothing but a shackle syntax wise.