[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 --- Comment #10 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-02-07 18:14:58 PST --- (In reply to comment #9) > I seemd to have skipped this part of the request. But you can open a new > request for this. OK. The length attribute is useful, to know at what point of the appending you are... But is adding opIndex() a good idea? It makes an appender a bit more similar to an array. For some implementations Appender.opIndex() is O(ln x) instead of O(1). (And in the end what's the point of keeping both Appender and std.array.Array? Isn't a well implemented Array (with a .data attribute) enough?). Despite I think Appender.length is useful and I like it, at the moment I don't have a clear use case for it in my D2 code. So unless I or other people will need it, I think I will not open another ER for now. Thank you. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 --- Comment #9 from Andrej Mitrovic 2013-02-07 16:47:07 PST --- (In reply to comment #8) > It seems the length attribute (and opIndex()) didn't get in this patch. I > don't > know if they are worth another ER. I seemd to have skipped this part of the request. But you can open a new request for this. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 --- Comment #8 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-02-07 16:38:57 PST --- It seems the length attribute (and opIndex()) didn't get in this patch. I don't know if they are worth another ER. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 Alex R�nne Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||a...@lycus.org Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 --- Comment #7 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-02-03 16:03:05 PST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Why was opOpAssign in that pull implemented with returning the 'this' > reference? I saw this in TDPL too, but I don't see the benefit of having this > compile: > > (foo ~= 1) ~= 1; Sometimes I like the assignment to return the value, to write: a = b = c; But I think the append doesn't need to return a value. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 Andrej Mitrovic changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull Version|future |D2 --- Comment #6 from Andrej Mitrovic 2013-02-03 15:41:57 PST --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1108 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 Andrej Mitrovic changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com Platform|Other |All AssignedTo|nob...@puremagic.com|andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com OS/Version|Windows |All --- Comment #5 from Andrej Mitrovic 2013-02-03 15:20:42 PST --- Question: Why was opOpAssign in that pull implemented with returning the 'this' reference? I saw this in TDPL too, but I don't see the benefit of having this compile: (foo ~= 1) ~= 1; Anyway as that pull was closed since it did too much I'm taking over this enhancement. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 Rob Jacques changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandf...@jhu.edu --- Comment #4 from Rob Jacques 2012-03-19 14:02:41 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/502 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 --- Comment #3 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-03-12 05:37:11 PDT --- See a discussion thread here, where I have suggested to give Appenhder both "put" method and a "~=" operator: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.learn&article_id=33135 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jimj6f$1vq$1...@digitalmars.com Adam D. Ruppe: > Another annoyance is if you have a function that works on > regular arrays, you probably used ~=. > But you decide to switch to Appender to try for a speed boost. > Now you have to change all the usage too, since the > interfaces are incompatible! See other messages in the thread. Adam D. Ruppe, James Miller, S�nke Ludwig and Timon Gehr seem to agree to add the "~=" to Appender. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287 Rob Jacques changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alvaro.seg...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Rob Jacques 2011-06-08 20:56:27 PDT --- *** Issue 5791 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4287] opOpAssign!("~=") for std.array.Appender
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287
--- Comment #1 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-01-28 14:38:22 PST ---
The put() method is not easy to remember (other collections use insert(), etc),
so for me the ~= is simpler to remember. The needed code for Appender, tested a
little:
/// Adds or appends data to the managed array.
void opOpAssign(string op:"~", T)(T data)
{
this.put(data);
}
It allows to write:
import std.stdio, std.array;
void main() {
auto a = appender!(int[]);
a ~= [1, 2];
a ~= 3;
writeln(a.data);
}
--
To define an appender of integers I suggest a syntax like:
auto a = appender!(int);
Instead of:
auto a = appender!(int[]);
because the significant type here is of the items added to the appender. The
fact that Appender uses an array to store such items is an implementation
detail the user must be able to ignore (an Appender may be implemented with a
dynamic array of fixed-sized arrays of items too, like some C++ deque data
structures, to decrease large memory allocations, at the cost of a slower O(n)
"data" method to convert the items in an array).
--
An O(log n) opIndex() too is useful for Appender, it's also useful to avoid
some usages of "data" method.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
