Nick Sabalausky: > Then you're wasting cycles every iteration (by doing an extra addition and > maybe an extra shift or even multiplication depending on T: Ie, > (cast(ubyte*)myArray.ptr) + i * T.sizeof). That was a pretty common > inner-loop optimization back in my C days.
With D sometimes array-based code is faster than pointer-based. With LDC they are usually equally efficient. > Plus, I've never once done pointer arithmetic accidentally in D, so I don't > see any safety to be gained from not allowing it. I think they are trying to design a safer language. Pointer arithmetic is well known to be error-prone. (I have never asked to remove pointer arithmetic from D). > > - Turning x++; into statements seems harsh, but indeed it solves some > > problems. In practice in my D programs the ++ is often used as a > > statement, to avoid bugs. > > I've long been of the opinion that should just be a statement. All it ever > does as an expression, if anything, is obfuscate code. I've never once seen > a case where it clarified anything. In some cases it shortens the code a bit, but the price to pay for such shortening is some possible bugs. I think/hope D will turn the sub-expression deterministic, so some expressions that contain ++ and function calls will be defined in D: Bye, bearophile
