I do this a lot : `(1..100).forEach{ }` but I never reference `it` and my linter get's upset w/ me. ...

# announcements

[TwoClocks]

I do this a lot : (1..100).forEach{ } but I never reference it and my linter get's upset w/ me. Is there a better way to do this?

[Nir]

You just want to do something 100 times, but you don't need the value?

[Nir]

for starters, I think you could use repeat

[Nir]

although that has the same issue, in principle

[nkiesel]

repeat(100) { } seems more natural to me. No idea if your linter (which one?) agrees

[Nir]

yeah, I agree it's a lot more natural for the use case. surprisingly though (to me), repeat still passes the integer to the lambda. so you'll still have an unused it. I suspect that hte linter isn't hardcoded to include/exclude certain functions but I could be wrong.

[Nir]

I'm not really sure I'm a huge fan of a linter complaining about unused function parameters, including it

[Nir]

it is implicit, so there's lots of reasons why it would be unused. more generally, sometimes your signature is dictated by say inheritance, and you aren't using some parameters

[Nir]

I remember having a check like this in C++ and it had millions of false positives, for valid reasons like this, so we disabled it as well

[TwoClocks]

Ooo. repeat() I like that better. learned something new. Thanks!

[TwoClocks]

yeah. I'm not sure complaining about an unused implied is very useful either. might disable as well.

[LeoColman]

Which linter are you using?

[LeoColman]

I think Detekt doesn't complain about repeat, for example

[TwoClocks]

Just the built in one in intelij

[darkmoon_uk]

@jonross Does the IntelliJ linter still complain if you explicitly don't use the parameter with _ -> ? I'm guessing that it will be satisfied, and if so this should be the preferred syntax.