On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 21:02:39 UTC, DLearner wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 20:33:31 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 20:17:12 UTC, Justin Whear wrote:
[...]
I think this is a good explanation.
Looking through
http://dlang.org/arrays.html
I see that the multidimensional array indexing is not
particularly focused on (could be improved?). I tend to prefer
reasoning things through than relying on a rule (more likely
to forget the rule). Thus, I would recommend the OP looks at
the way they describe the prefix array declarations for
multidimensional arrays. They have the example
int[4][3] b; // array of 3 arrays of 4 ints each
So you can think of b as an array containing 3 arrays with 4
ints each. For the OP's foo, he should think of foo as an
array containing 2 arrays with 1 int each. Moreover, it's more
likely that you want to index the arrays and then what's in
the arrays, i.e. it's more likely that you would want to do
something with the first array of foo and then the second
array of foo. This notation makes it a little bit easier to do
that.
Out of curiosity, why can't D define a 2-dim array by something
like:
int(2,1) foo;
which defines two elements referred to as:
foo(0,0) and foo(1,0)?
It just seems unnatural (if not actually dangerous) to me
to have the array index order reverse between definition and
use.
The notation comes from C. While I think there are many things
that could be improved wrt arrays, I'm not sure this is one (in
that exact way). However, improved ways to access
multidimensional arrays is important to me. There is some work on
improved multidimensional array support that may allow access
that way I think.
