grauzone wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
The purpose of T[new] was to solve the problems T[] had with passing
T[] to a function and then the function resizes the T[]. What
happens with the original?
The solution we came up with was to create a third array type,
T[new], which was a reference type.
Andrei had the idea that T[new] could be dispensed with by making a
"builder" library type to handle creating arrays by doing things
like appending, and then delivering a finished T[] type. This is
similar to what std.outbuffer and std.array.Appender do, they just
need a bit of refining.
The .length property of T[] would then become an rvalue only, not an
lvalue, and ~= would no longer be allowed for T[].
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++.
What do you think?
Since noone else seems to have said it: The fact that you're both
willing to let it go, after having already invested a lot of time in
it, is a good sign for the language. Well done.
I'm relieved that somebody mentioned that :o). As soon as we gave up
with T[new], people started to sell it to us. We should preemptively
post about eliminating feature plans before actually implementing them.
By the way: implementation of @property has been canceled.
Yeah, let's just keep the language in the broken state it is, because we
can't think of a better solution.
Silly me, I was thinking the humor was all too obvious.
Andrei
