On Saturday, June 30, 2012 21:01:02 Vidar Wahlberg wrote: > On Saturday, 30 June 2012 at 18:32:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > In D, static arrays are always fixed in size, and that size > > must be known at > > compile time, whereas dynamic arrays are never fixed in size > > (unless they're > > immutable), and the size doesn't need to be known at compile > > time. There is no > > way to have a static array whose size isn't known at compile > > time, which is > > what you'd need for what you're trying to do. > > Thanks for the answer. It makes sense, yet when used to > multidimensional arrays as implemented in Java it takes some time > to wrap your head around this. > > > I believe that the only way to do it would be to create a > > struct which wrapped > > a single dimensional, dynamic array, and then overloaded > > opIndex appropriately > > This is a very good suggestion, I hadn't thought of this > possibility, this way I can get my beloved "matrix[x][y];" > instead of something like "matrix.get(x, y);".
It might have to be matrix[x, y] though, since while you can make opIndex take as many arguments as you want, I don't believe that it will let you split them out into multiple indexing operations like in matrix[x][y]. If you really want that, you'd have to create a helper type which opIndex returned and have that helper type overload opIndex for the second index. But if efficiency is your main concern, that might be a problem, since I expect that that adds some overhead (though probably not a lot). - Jonathan M Davis
