Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:24:54 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rainer Deyke wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
C++ ctors won't do the right thing if you use pointers, which is the
moral equivalent of using T[] inside MathematicalVector. If you
refer to
std::vector instead, then that's a carefully-defined type that does
have
the right copy constructor defined.
So where's the D equivalent of std::vector? Phobos has nothing.
It will.
I was under the impression that native arrays were intended to be used
directly in D, something I rarely do in C++. Certainly neither of the
standard libraries has any hesitation about passing unadorned dynamic
arrays around.
Phobos2 plans to consistently consider T[] a range, not a full-fledged
array. A range corresponds to a pair of iterators in STL.
Andrei
Will T[] get front, back, empty properties, and popFront(), popBack()
methods?
Yes, not as methods, but as free functions.
Perhaps, its the time T[] internal structure is changed!
For example, ptr+size replaced by two pointers, some additional fields
added etc..
I agree. Walter said let's get ranges going and then we can look into
optimizing the structure. Ranges seem to work really well so the
structural change will follow soon.
Andrei
