Am 16.07.2010 11:12, schrieb Heywood Floyd:
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
I do agree that, if possible, the language should match how most people
think. But in this case, it is impossible, because of templates. How
would the following example work with T = int[3], if arrays worked the
way you want?
struct MyArray(T)
{
T[] a;
}
C doesn't have this issue, because it doesn't have templates. And I'll
have my templates over C-style array declarations any time, thank you. :)
-Lars
Well, I suppose the obvious way is to introduce array as a proper type, and not
just as syntactical sugar. For instance, consider:
array[11] int myArr;
...
I don't really like it. Of course the order of indices feels better but
it breaks the rule of reading types from right to left. It also
introduces more parenthesis and a new keyword into types (amongst const,
immutable and delegate etc). Consider:
shared array[3](const( array[5] immuttable((SList!(int)*)[]) ))
WTF, that doesn't look good. I would be a real type if your answer was
accepted.
It was
shared const( immutable(Slist!(int)*[])[5] )[3]
which reads perfectly from right to left.
What about this:
// int[width,height] as sugar for int[height][width]
int[width,height] arr = ...;
// arr[x,y] as sugar for arr[x][y]
int element = arr[x,y];
// then this works as expected
int[height] column = arr[x];
