On 2010-09-04 10:02, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky"<a...@a.a> wrote in message
news:i5su5e$23m...@digitalmars.com...
In D1 I did this sort of thing a fair amount:
void foo(T)(T[] collection, T elem)
{
// Blah, whatever
}
Worked for any of the string types, worked for any array, or anything with
the appropriate opIndexes, and for all I know there may be some
improvement that could still be made. But of course, in D2 strings have
that extra immutable part that mucks up the above for strings (and then
there's ranges), so: Is there a typical generally-best way in D2 to
declare a function signature for operating on collections and elements? I
know it would involve using the standard range interfaces in the body and
choosing the most restrictive range type that gets the job done, and I'm
fine with all that, but is there a good example of a typical
"best-practice" generic-function signature in D2?
Oh, also, and perhaps more importantly (I forgot, this was my main original
reason for even posting the question):
What would be the *right* D2 version of the above code that *didn't* bother
with ranges, and just stuck with arrays and strings? Sometimes I need to do
something in CTFE and using ranges leads to using "std.algorithm", and CTFE
still tends to choke on a lot of "std.algorithm".
If you're not going to modify the content of the array I think this will
work:
void foo (T) (const(T)[] collection, T elem) {}
This will allow both mutable, immutable and const arrays. But it will
not let you modify the array like this:
collection[3] = 'a';
--
/Jacob Carlborg
