On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 08:42:50 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote:
On 07/04/2013 01:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 05:25:30 -0400, Regan Heath <re...@netmail.co.nz>
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:10:40 +0100, bearophile
<bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote:
Telling apart the literal for an empty array from the literal of a
empty but not null array is a bad idea that muds the language. And
thankfully this currently fails:
void main() {
int[] emptyArray = [];
assert(emptyArray !is null);
}
As this comes up often you're probably aware that there are people
(like myself) who find the distinction between a null (non-existant)
array and an empty array useful.
Nobody questions that. The biggest problem is making if(arr) mean
if(arr.ptr) instead of if(arr.length)
if(arr.ptr) is what it means now.
I know, and that is a problem.
-Steve
What [] returns should not be an allocation. And returning null is a
reasonable implementation of that.
static __gshared void[1] x;
return x[0..0];
That's also a valid solution, along with:
void *x = null;
return x[0..0];
-Steve
