dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Jason House wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
We both feel that this would simplify D, make it more flexible,
and remove some awkward corner cases like the inability to say
a.length++.
How would this remove this corner case?
Can't increment length if it's read-only.
Andrei
removing syntactic sugar doesn't really remove corner cases. T[new]
is being replaced with an array builder. What usage semantics are
given up with an array builder? How will implicit conversions be
handled? (alias this, etc...). How will the Phobos array buiilder
support user specified lengths (for efficiency)?
I think ArrayBuilder could a logic similar to Appender for "~=" and
otherwise offer regular array primitives. I don't think implicit
conversion to T[] is an essential feature, but it can be done.
Andrei
So basically, ArrayBuilder would be like T[new], except:
1. It would be a plain old library type, and the core language would know
nothing
about it.
2. T[].dup, T[] ~ T[], new T[3], etc. would return T[], not
ArrayBuilder/T[new].
Is this basically correct?
Yes, that's the plan. I hope you're not setting me up or something :o).
Andrei
