On 2013-11-25 10:34:39 +0000, Namespace said:
On Monday, 25 November 2013 at 03:13:48 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote:
On 2013-11-25 00:08:50 +0000, Namespace said:
I love this feature, but I'm unsure how it works. Can someone explain
me, how the compiler deduce that he should read 4 bytes for each index
(the 'at' function)? The type is void*, not int*.
It doesn't work. That code is buggy. It's overwriting previous
elements with new ones. Indexing a void* only moves up by 1 byte.
void main() {
pragma(msg, void.sizeof)
Tarray arr;
arr.push(42);
int a;
arr.at(0, &a);
writeln(a, "::", arr.length, "::", arr.capacity);
arr.push(23);
arr.at(1, &a);
writeln(a, "::", arr.length, "::", arr.capacity);
arr.push(1337);
arr.at(2, &a);
writeln(a, "::", arr.length, "::", arr.capacity);
writeln(arr.capacity);
arr.push(ushort.max); //Write a ushort to test.
arr.at(3, &a); //Only works because we're on a little endian platform
writeln(a, "::", arr.length, "::", arr.capacity);
arr.at(2, &a);
writeln(a, "::", arr.length, "::", arr.capacity);
}
Ok, that calms me down. Thought I had missed something.
Yeah. You had me confused for a bit too. :) Couldn't figure out why
Ushort.max was being re-read correctly. I'm use to big-endian
platforms. It certainly would have been miraculous if the compiler
knew what kind of elements you put in the array to be able to index to
the right location.
-Shammah
