Of course, the problem with giving it a generic name like "foreach" is that you want to use it for other things . . . mayhap you could write a family of "map" functions (which is truly what it's doing, since in most languages which have a "foreach" construct, it's a general-purpose loop):

i.e. map_int, map_str, map_dbl, map_float, map_int_2d, et cetera.

By Jove, I do think you've inspired me!

I've got good news, and I've got bad news:
The universe is merely a figment of my imagination.
Now are you ready for the bad news?

You could make it type-independant and overall-cooler if you used a macro.

Very nice. It reminds me of the Ruby foreach statement, which is good for handling database query arrays. This would work just like that it looks like.

The STL algorithms already support legacy arrays:

#include
int arr = {0, 1, 2, 3};
for_each(arr, arr+4, print);

Oh, BTW, sizeof(int) is not necessarily 4. Welcome to the 64-bit world.

When did I say that sizeof int is always 4? And also, the majority of computers arent on 64 bit yet, now are they? This is supposed to be an example not a perfection. It suited the case and did its job.

And also its easy for you to call sometihng "Bad," because you haven't submitted anything. Why don't you submit a little then we can see who has "bad" code.

[quote]
(sizeof(a) / 4)
[/quote]

right there you say the size of int is 4 which is not right. you should do

(sizeof(a) / sizeof(int))




FURTHERMORE..... and this is very important. this code is completely worthless.

sizeof(a) will return the sizeof a pointer. that's because when you pass an array to a function that function sees the array only as a pointer back to a place on the stack. The code you provided doesn't even compile because of this line:
int arr = {0, 1, 2, 3};

should be

int arr[] = {0, 1, 2, 3};

in the end how hard is it to type:
int i;
for (i = 0; i < (sizeof(a)/sizeof(int); i++)
{

}

if you actually wanted a foreach loop write a macro.

did you test this code at all. no matter how many items I put in a[] it always prints
0
1

I don't know why everyone rated this code good other than they must not know C very well.