On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:57:37 -0600, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2012 02:36:31 Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
Yeah, but I don't care about the underlying array. I care
about multiple places referencing the same Appender. If I
from any place that references it, it appends to the same
appender. The Appender "array" has identity. Ranges do not:
int[] bla = [1,2,3];
int[] ble = bla;
ble ~= 4;
assert(bla.length == 3);
This is very easy to solve with appender.
This is what happens in Java:
ArrayList<Integer> bla = new ArrayList<Integer>();
bla.add(1);
ArrayList<Integer> ble = bla;
ble.add(2);
//prints 2
System.out.println(Integer.toString(bla.size()));
//prints 2
System.out.println(Integer.toString(ble.size()));
(yikes, aint that verbose!)
The ArrayList has identity. It is a class, so that it
many variables reference the _same_ object.
(this can be accomplished with structs too though, but
not with ranges).
The D equivalent would really be Array, not Appender. I'm not sure that it's a
great idea to use Appender as a container - particularly when there are types
specifically intended to be used as containers. Appender is geared specifically
towards array building (like StringBuilder in Java, except generalized for all
arrays). If it's a container that you're looking for, then I really think that
you should use a container.
- Jonathan M Davis
StringBuilder in .Net is implemented using lists and doesn't expose iteration
nor indexing; why are we worrying about the indexing and container performance
of D's appender?
