On 6/11/22 13:36, z wrote:
> i meant with the syntax in (1), the spec's documentation appears to say
> they are equivalent in result with `new *type*[X][Y]` form.
>
> (1) https://dlang.org/spec/expression#new_multidimensional (3. multiple
> argument form)
Thank you. I see now: The values in pare
On Saturday, 11 June 2022 at 15:01:05 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 6/11/22 00:09, z wrote:
> I rechecked and it should be `X Y Z` for static array, but `Z
Y X` for
> indexing/dynamic array creating with `new`
How so?
i meant with the syntax in (1), the spec's documentation appears
to say they
On 6/11/22 00:09, z wrote:
> I rechecked and it should be `X Y Z` for static array, but `Z Y X` for
> indexing/dynamic array creating with `new`
How so? I wrote the following program:
import std.stdio;
void main() {
enum X = 2;
enum Y = 3;
enum Z = 4;
int[X][Y][Z] s;
int[X][Y][] d =
On 6/11/22 04:16, Salih Dincer wrote:
> I think D is very consistent with our feelings. That is, the order in
> memory is in the form of rows x columns.
Yet, there are no rows or columns because neither D nor C (nor C++) have
multip-dimensional arrays. They all have arrays where elements are la
On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 17:26:48 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I've written about this multiple times in the past but D's way
is consistent for me. That must be because I always found C's
syntax to be very illogical on this. [...]
I think so too...
I think D is very consistent with our feelings.
On Saturday, 11 June 2022 at 03:56:32 UTC, Chris Katko wrote:
On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 17:26:48 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 6/10/22 08:13, z wrote:
> arrays of arrays has different order for declaration and
addressing,
> and declaring array of arrays has different order depending
on how you
>
On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 17:26:48 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 6/10/22 08:13, z wrote:
> arrays of arrays has different order for declaration and
addressing,
> and declaring array of arrays has different order depending
on how you
> declare it and wether it's static or dynamic array, *oof*)
>
>
On 6/10/22 08:13, z wrote:
> arrays of arrays has different order for declaration and addressing,
> and declaring array of arrays has different order depending on how you
> declare it and wether it's static or dynamic array, *oof*)
>
> To give you an idea of the situation :
> ```D
> int[3][1
On 6/10/22 08:01, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> I still don't understand the reason though. The rows would be copied
> without ref but should retain their type as bool[3], a static array. (?)
Ok, now I see the very sinister problem: It is a disaster to combine
static array lambda parameters with the laz
On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 08:08:45 UTC, Chris Katko wrote:
Is it somehow possible to use a struct as a [multidimensional]
array index:
D
struct indexedPair
{
size_t x, y;
}
bool isMapPassable[100][100];
auto p = indexedPair(50, 50);
if(isMapPassable[p]) return true;
Probably not,
On 6/10/22 07:38, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> I played with that toString function but for some reason it prints all
> Ts. (?)
Fixed it by changing one of the lambdas to take by reference:
void toString(scope void delegate(in char[]) sink) const {
import std.algorithm;
sink.formattedWrite!"%
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 08:08:45AM +, Chris Katko via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Is it somehow possible to use a struct as a [multidimensional] array index:
>
> D
>
> struct indexedPair
> {
> size_t x, y;
> }
>
> bool isMapPassable[100][100];
> auto p = indexedPair(50, 50);
>
> if(is
On 6/10/22 01:08, Chris Katko wrote:
> Is it somehow possible to use a struct as a [multidimensional] array
index:
You can define an opIndex that takes any index type if the array is
defined by you:
import std.stdio;
import std.format;
struct indexedPair {
size_t x, y;
}
struct MyArray {
Is it somehow possible to use a struct as a [multidimensional]
array index:
D
struct indexedPair
{
size_t x, y;
}
bool isMapPassable[100][100];
auto p = indexedPair(50, 50);
if(isMapPassable[p]) return true;
Probably not, but I'm curious.
14 matches
Mail list logo
