http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8008
Summary: static array literal syntax request: auto x=[1,2,3]S;
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: thelastmamm...@gmail.com
--- Comment #0 from thelastmamm...@gmail.com 2012-04-30 14:04:10 PDT ---
Currently, array literals such as
auto x=[1,2,3];
make x dynamic. To get a static array one needs to write:
int[3] x=[1,2,3];
which is inconvenient for many reasons:
* DRY principle (need to explicitly write 3 as the length and specify the type
int)
* no easy way to pass a static array litteral to a function accepting a static
array; for example it requires:
int[3] x=[1,2,3];
fun(x);
Wouldn't it be simple to allow writing array literals using the syntax:
auto x=[1,2,3]S;
where S stands for static?
More generally the compiler should translate [x1,...,xn]S to: typeof(x1)[n]
Advantages:
* static array litterals becomes as convenient as dynamic ones
* no confusion possible for the compiler; I believe this syntax doesn't clash
with existing syntax.
* In our previous example, no need to write an intermediate x: we can just
write
fun([1,2,3]S);
or
fun([1.0,2,3]S); //for example, if static array of doubles requested
* this would also prevent the common workaround hacks of the form:
void fun(T...)(T x){} which accept fun(1,2,3): one could just write:
void fun(T,uint N)(in T[N]x){} or void fun(T,uint N)(T[N]x){}
* this could prevent inefficient intermediate code as reported in Issue 2356
and related, as it would be clear from "S" that a static is requested.
* this could be used in expressions as well: auto x=[1,2,3]S+[4,5,6]S;
This should be simpler than a previous request I've seen for int[$]x=[1,2,3];,
which still requires one to write the type explicitly.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
