On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 15:56:31 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I wonder whether it would complicate syntax? (But * already has
so many meanings that maybe that would not be too bad.)
I doubt it, but maybe. Plenty of languages exist that do a
left-to-right reading of types and they seem to work
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 15:44:52 UTC, ixid wrote:
I wasn't arguing for the old style, the new declarations should
have read from left to right so [6][5][string]int and then you
access the elements in the same order that you assigned them,
that seems far less confusing and leaves less ro
On 04/02/2013 07:28 PM, Chris Cain wrote:> On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at
01:30:19 UTC, ixid wrote:
> What's a int*? It's a pointer to an int. Why isn't it a *int, then?
I wonder whether it would complicate syntax? (But * already has so many
meanings that maybe that would not be too bad.)
> H
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 02:28:55 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 01:30:19 UTC, ixid wrote:
How can you call the new syntax better? You assign arrays'
lengths in the opposite to that that you access them. It's a
horrible design mistake.
Unfortunately, I have to agree
Chris Cain:
Really though, bearophile has it right. C (and, D,
transitively) made a huge mistake in type declarations. They
ought to be read from left to right (like Pascal). C is crazy
in that they've designed it so you read types in a spiral
pattern.
Maybe you are talking more about Go he
On Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 01:30:19 UTC, ixid wrote:
How can you call the new syntax better? You assign arrays'
lengths in the opposite to that that you access them. It's a
horrible design mistake.
Unfortunately, I have to agree that the new syntax is better.
int[5][6] is confusing as a ty
On Monday, 1 April 2013 at 09:30:23 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 1 April 2013 at 08:42:45 UTC, Nicholas Smith wrote:
Ali, thanks for the justification. It makes enough sense, and
at least int[][](2, 3) matches the order in which you access
the elements.
I agree with Bearophile though
On Monday, 1 April 2013 at 10:52:34 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 4/1/13, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Obviously, like C and C++, D does not have multi-dimensional
arrays but
D's array of array syntax is consistent.
Does not have *rectangular* multi-dimensional arrays. :)
Actually, D does have part
On 4/1/13, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> Obviously, like C and C++, D does not have multi-dimensional arrays but
> D's array of array syntax is consistent.
Does not have *rectangular* multi-dimensional arrays. :)
On Monday, 1 April 2013 at 08:42:45 UTC, Nicholas Smith wrote:
Ali, thanks for the justification. It makes enough sense, and
at least int[][](2, 3) matches the order in which you access
the elements.
I agree with Bearophile though that the syntax is very messy
when you're mixing array types a
Ali, thanks for the justification. It makes enough sense, and at
least int[][](2, 3) matches the order in which you access the
elements.
I agree with Bearophile though that the syntax is very messy when
you're mixing array types and pre/postfix declarations. If you
weren't shooting for C fami
On 03/31/2013 06:36 PM, Nicholas Smith wrote:> Hello there,
>
> So I noticed something about the semantics of multidimensional
> fixed-length array vs slice initialization:
>
> Code:
>
> int[2][3] array;
Obviously, like C and C++, D does not have multi-dimensional arrays but
D's array of array s
Nicholas Smith:
Can anyone explain reasoning behind this?
To help confuse you a little more, this syntax is also allowed in
D:
int array[2][3];
Plus of course a mixed D/C
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5807 ):
int[2] array[3];
Mixing fixed size arrays with dynamic ones
Hello there,
So I noticed something about the semantics of multidimensional
fixed-length array vs slice initialization:
Code:
int[2][3] array;
writeln(array.length, " ", array[0].length);
int[][] slice = new int[][](2, 3);
writeln(slice.length, " ", slice[0].length);
Output:
3 2
2 3
So it
14 matches
Mail list logo
