http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #40 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-12-14 00:01:37 PST ---
Some people agree with me that mass assignment syntax for tuples is bad, it's
an anti-feature:
auto (i, j) = 10;
assert(i == 10);
assert(j == 10);
Like Alex R. Petersen:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #39 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-11-18 18:11:33 PST ---
Please ignore the "This syntax doesn't work because "_" is a valid
variable name (and even if there's only one of them I don't want to define a
"_" variable):" part of the p
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #38 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-11-18 18:10:20 PST ---
See also bug 4579
--
Another handy sub-feature. Sometimes you have tuples with N items, but you only
want to unpack some of them. This syntax doesn't work
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #37 from Kenji Hara 2011-10-20 19:20:06 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #34)
> We should really strive to get a consistent syntax for this.
> auto (x, y) is a totally specialized syntax.
See comment #19. It is a special case of (auto
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #36 from Kenji Hara 2011-10-20 19:08:36 PDT
---
Scala has similar syntax.
http://www.scala-lang.org/docu/files/ScalaReference.pdf p.170
| Changes in Version 2.6.1 (30-Nov-2007)
| Mutable variables introduced by pattern binding
| M
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #35 from d...@dawgfoto.de 2011-09-08 10:15:17 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> (auto a, b) = (2, 3);
This would actually call for 'auto tup = (2, 3);' && '(auto a, b) tup = (2,
3);' || 'auto tup@(a, b) = (2, 3);'. So you can pass
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
d...@dawgfoto.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@dawgfoto.de
--- Comment #34 fro
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #33 from Kenji Hara 20
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #32 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-08-22 23:52:53 PDT ---
See also issue 6544
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #31 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-08-18 23:47:46 PDT ---
Regarding this change, removing tuple unpacking for arrays is not a good idea,
in my opinion. You are making tuples less handy, with zero gain in doing so.
https://github.c
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #30 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-08-18 23:35:27 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> We should step back and figure out what we want to do with tuples in the much
> more general case.
I think this point is mostly solved, because
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #29 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-08-08 14:48:37 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> If we grow tuple support by adding piecemeal special cases for this and that,
> without thinking about them more globally, we are liable to buil
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #28 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-08-03 04:35:25 PDT ---
See also the discussion here:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=141640
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/is
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #27 from Kenji Hara 2011-08-02 06:39:43 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #26)
Thanks for your reply.
I have two claims.
1. D language specification already implicitly allow automatic tuple expansion.
a) Alias this allows an impl
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
--- Comment #
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #25 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-26 06:53:52 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> I'd say let's not go overboard. auto (names) = initializer; sounds like the
> good thing to do, so let's do it. The rest are considerably more t
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #24 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-26 02:45:09 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Also we can allow a static array on initializer like follows:
>
> auto (x, y) = [10, 20];
> assert(x == 10);
> assert(y == 20);
A few days ago, I wrote as
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #23 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2011-07-25
21:03:44 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Two quite useful use cases:
>
> A)
> int[] array = [1, 2]; // dynamic array
> auto (x, y) = array; // raises a run-time exception if array.length
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #22 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-25 19:56:30 PDT ---
Two quite useful use cases:
A)
int[] array = [1, 2]; // dynamic array
auto (x, y) = array; // raises a run-time exception if array.length != 2
B)
auto (x, y, z) = iota(3)
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #21 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-24 12:20:00 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> This too is valid D code:
>
> auto a = [1, 2,];
I didn't know that. Thank you.
In this case, TupleDeclaration syntax is similar to ParameterList.
void
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #20 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-24 12:01:55 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> In D, Isolated comma is almost invalid except enum declaration, I think.
This too is valid D code:
auto a = [1, 2,];
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #19 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-24 11:43:28 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Are you sure you want to use that syntax?
Yes. The syntax is usuful for tuple expansion and non-auto binding:
const (x, y) = tuple(10, 20);
// x and y are
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #18 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-24 11:14:57 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
>
> // 1-tuple expansion
> auto (x1) = [10];
Are you sure you want to use that syntax?
A syntax more similar to the Python one is:
auto (x1,) =
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #17 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-24 07:38:49 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #16)
> How does it behave for 0-tuples and 1-tuples?
I think 1-element tuple expansion should be allowed.
Now my patch's this support is incomplete. I'll improve
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #16 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-24 07:24:53 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I clean up syntax, and update patch.
> https://github.com/9rnsr/dmd/compare/expandTuples...declarationTuple
Thank you.
How does it behave for:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #15 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-24 06:41:36 PDT
---
I found a conflict like follows:
(double, string) (i, j) = tuple(1.2, "a");
(var, func)(var, var) = tuple(1.2, "a");
So it is bad.
I clean up syntax, and update patch.
https://g
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #14 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-23 12:14:23 PDT ---
See also the idea of switching on tuples, in issue 596
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail be
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #13 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-23 12:04:19 PDT ---
Tuple slicing and other situations create tuples with 1 items or 0 items:
auto t = tuple(1.5, "foo");
auto t1 = t[0 .. 1];
auto t2 = t[0 .. 0];
In python they are written:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #12 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-23 09:03:24 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > (auto i, j) = tuple(1.2, "a");
> >
> > Then the syntax can be later extended to:
> >
> > (double i, string j) = tu
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #11 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-23 08:33:10 PDT
---
Oops, I forgot to paste experimental patch link.
https://github.com/9rnsr/dmd/compare/expandTuples...declarationTuple
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #10 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-23 08:28:08 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> One simple syntactic matter is that we can't extend the existing syntax to
> work
> with specified types. That means the user must use "auto" but cannot sp
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #9 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-23 07:48:46 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Regarding mismatch in the number of elements, we may actually do good to
> disable
>
> TypeTuple!(int, int) f = 10;
> assert(f[0] == 10);
> assert
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #8 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2011-07-23
07:33:33 PDT ---
Regarding mismatch in the number of elements, we may actually do good to
disable
TypeTuple!(int, int) f = 10;
assert(f[0] == 10);
assert(f[1] == 10);
instead of striving to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
Andrei Alexandrescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||and...@metalanguage.com
--- Comm
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #6 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-23 05:27:14 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Optionally there is the foreach use case too. A possible syntax:
>
> auto array = [tuple(1,"foo"), tuple(2,"bar")];
> foreach (tuple(id, name); array) {}
I
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-23 05:23:06 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This is keeping consistent feature.
> Current D allow compilation of following code:
>
> TypeTuple!(int, int) f = 10;
> assert(f[0] == 10);
> ass
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-07-23 05:18:55 PDT ---
Optionally there is the foreach use case too. A possible syntax:
auto array = [tuple(1,"foo"), tuple(2,"bar")];
foreach (tuple(id, name); array) {}
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-23 05:17:57 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
>
> > auto (n1, n2) = 100; // non tuple initializer
> > assert(n1 == 100);
> > assert(n2 == 100);
>
> This *must* be a compile-tim
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara 2011-07-23 05:08:51 PDT ---
Also we can allow a static array on initializer like follows:
auto (x, y) = [10, 20];
assert(x == 10);
assert(y == 20);
But, it has a bit problem.
auto (x, y) = [10, 20, 30]; // int
40 matches
Mail list logo
