On 10/7/10 12:11 CDT, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-10-07 11:47:21 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
On 10/7/10 10:39 CDT, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
On 10/7/10 9:59 CDT, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
On 10/7/10 6:54 CDT, atommixz wrote:
It would be nice if it were possible to use the "in" expression
wherever
possible. Now it is only implemented for associative. arrays.
(Weird).
Examples of how this could be used:
- Find string in string
- Search for a character in a string
- Search for an item in the array, array of characters, array of
strings,
tuples, enum, structure
- what else?
In Python done something like this.
Here it would be useful to me
http://code.google.com/p/atommixz/source/browse/analyze-x86/analyze-x86.py
http://code.google.com/p/atommixz/source/browse/analyze-x86/analyzex86.d
I'm a bit leary of adopting this feature (it has been discussed). To
me "in" implies a fast operation and substring searching isn't quite
it.
One thing that could be done is to allow "in" with literal arrays to
their right:
if (x in ["abcde", "asd"]) { ... }
The size of the operand is constant, known, and visible.
Andrei
That feels inconsistent.. to be able to use it with "literal arrays to
their right" (and what about fixed size arrays?) but not with actual
arrays and dynamic arrays seems weird.
It's not. It's all about constant size in the size of the input vs.
arbitrary size. Makes perfect sense to me.
So what about static arrays?
Same deal - same as literal arrays: they can be searched. The expected
run time is known during compilation and independent of the input size.
What about a static array of 200000 elements? At which point does it
become linear?
At no point. "Linear" means "linear in the input size". I don't think
such arguments are valid.
Andrei
