On 2012-03-21 23:25, Simen Kjærås wrote:
I hope you mean canFind!(true)([3, 4, 5]);. canFind!a fails for
arrays where all elements are 0.
Yes. I'm not really familiar with canFind or std.algorithms in general.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:53:42 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 20:46:05 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 20:17:06 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:56:41 -0400, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.com
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 07:12:22 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Note that the default std::list has O(1) length (as does dcollections'
LinkedList). It's not as inevitable as you think.
It depends on bothe container its implementation as to how efficient
length/size
is (and in the case of
On 2012-03-21 04:54, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Hear me out... ;)
Using empty seems to be emerging as the recommended practice for testing
whether an array is empty. And that makes sense as it's consistent with
other ranges. I'm all in favor of that.
But I've found myself avoiding empty (and
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote in message
news:jkc321$25pv$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 2012-03-21 04:54, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Hear me out... ;)
Using empty seems to be emerging as the recommended practice for testing
whether an array is empty. And that makes sense as it's consistent with
On 2012-03-21 09:42, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jacob Carlborgd...@me.com wrote in message
Sure, why not. Do we want an any function as well, that is the opposite?
I think !array.empty is plenty sufficient. Besides, there are other good
uses of any that have been brought up before.
Actually I
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:54:51 -0400, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
FWIW, I would rather see `if (array)` translated to `if (array.length)`
and
this become the recomended way to check if an array is empty. Wouldn't
that
remove the dependency on std.array for most of the
On Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 04:54:54 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
FWIW, I would rather see `if (array)` translated to `if
(array.length)` and
this become the recomended way to check if an array is empty.
Wouldn't that
remove the dependency on std.array for most of the cases?
Nope. .length
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:50:46 -0400, Xinok xi...@live.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 04:54:54 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
FWIW, I would rather see `if (array)` translated to `if (array.length)`
and
this become the recomended way to check if an array is empty. Wouldn't
that
remove
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 15:54:51 Daniel Murphy wrote:
FWIW, I would rather see `if (array)` translated to `if (array.length)` and
this become the recomended way to check if an array is empty. Wouldn't that
remove the dependency on std.array for most of the cases?
The problem with checking
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:33:58 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 15:54:51 Daniel Murphy wrote:
FWIW, I would rather see `if (array)` translated to `if (array.length)`
and
this become the recomended way to check if an array is empty. Wouldn't
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wbjc7au8eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
I don't see why defining empty in object.d is necessary for things that
don't involve ranges at all.
But arrays *are* ranges. Or at least they're supposed to be.
Any time you import a
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:21:21 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wbjc7au8eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
I don't see why defining empty in object.d is necessary for things that
don't involve ranges at all.
But arrays *are*
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:17:08 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-03-21 09:42, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jacob Carlborgd...@me.com wrote in message
Sure, why not. Do we want an any function as well, that is the
opposite?
I think !array.empty is plenty sufficient. Besides, there are
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:43:28 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:21:21 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wbjc7au8eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
As an bonus this gets rid of the
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 15:46:12 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:33:58 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 15:54:51 Daniel Murphy wrote:
FWIW, I would rather see `if (array)` translated to `if (array.length)`
and
this
On 2012-03-21 21:49, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:17:08 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.8.7/Enumerable.html#method-i-any-3F
So, std.algorithm.canFind then? There has been some discussion of renaming it
to any (or at least the overload that just
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:30:17 +0100, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2012-03-21 21:49, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:17:08 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.8.7/Enumerable.html#method-i-any-3F
So, std.algorithm.canFind then? There has been
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.985.1332364578.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I know that. Much point is that length == 0 is a bad thing to do in
general,
because it's ineffecient with some containers. The language itself is
pretty
much irrelevant as
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:39:23 Daniel Murphy wrote:
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.985.1332364578.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I know that. Much point is that length == 0 is a bad thing to do in
general,
because it's ineffecient with some
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:56:41 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
Except that containers shouldn't provide indexing if it's not efficient.
And
from what I've seen, it's far too common for programmers to check length
== 0,
and they end up doing it on stuff like linked lists
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 20:17:06 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:56:41 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
Except that containers shouldn't provide indexing if it's not efficient.
And
from what I've seen, it's far too common for programmers to check
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 20:46:05 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 20:17:06 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:56:41 -0400, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
Except that containers shouldn't provide indexing if it's not efficient.
And
On 3/21/12 6:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Except that containers shouldn't provide indexing if it's not efficient. And
from what I've seen, it's far too common for programmers to check length == 0,
and they end up doing it on stuff like linked lists where it _is_ inefficient.
It's considered
On 3/21/12 7:53 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Actually, it looks like std.container _does_ guarantee that length is O(1),
unlike C++'s STL, in which case it's not the same issue that it is in C++.
Here we learned from a small mistake of C++. (BTW it's O(log n).)
Andrei
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 21:12:36 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/21/12 7:53 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Actually, it looks like std.container _does_ guarantee that length is
O(1), unlike C++'s STL, in which case it's not the same issue that it
is in C++.
Here we learned from a small
Hear me out... ;)
Using empty seems to be emerging as the recommended practice for testing
whether an array is empty. And that makes sense as it's consistent with
other ranges. I'm all in favor of that.
But I've found myself avoiding empty (and instead doing arr== or checking
the .length)
On 3/21/12, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Hear me out... ;)
Man I would say the same thing about write() functions. I've missed
importing std.stdio so many times. It doesn't help that the compiler
happily asks me if I've missed an import to std.stdio. But I digress..
I use .length all the time.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 05:27:01AM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/21/12, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Hear me out... ;)
Man I would say the same thing about write() functions. I've missed
importing std.stdio so many times. It doesn't help that the compiler
happily asks me if I've
FWIW, I would rather see `if (array)` translated to `if (array.length)` and
this become the recomended way to check if an array is empty. Wouldn't that
remove the dependency on std.array for most of the cases?
30 matches
Mail list logo
