%u <e...@ee.com> wrote:
First question, shouldn't the first foreach be replaced by a simple for
loop:
for(int i = 0; i<num; i++ ) {
It certainly could, and that would explain the presence of 'num', but
it's not necessary, and should make no difference in the generated
executable.
If I understand it correctly the foreach aggregates are actually
string-tuple
literals.
Yes.
Then couldn't the second one be CT translated to char[][]?
That way the stringOf would be a simple array index.
Indeed it could, though I will leave its implementation as an
exercise for the reader :p. I also thought up a Duff's
device-inspired contraption that works:
string toString( ) {
switch ( value ) {
foreach ( i, e; T ) {
case i:
return T[i];
}
}
}
This should be as fast as the char[][].
And lastly, I probably need to make the whole struct a string mixin if I
want it's
type to be like an enum.. don't I? :'(
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. In what way that you don't like
it is it enum-unlike?
--
Simen
