On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 05:07:35 UTC, Kapps wrote:
On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 19:07:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
The interesting thing is because of the tight overloading
rules, "s" will only match statically-sized arrays. So it's
okay to simply expose it as std.array.s without fear it might
clash with other uses of the "s" symbol. Awesome. -- Andrei
With a library method of [1, 2, 3].s, or syntax of [1, 2, 3]s,
would this proposed $ syntax really provide any benefit? Since
you could already use 'auto a = [1, 2, 3]' for size inference,
Did you mean 'auto a = [1, 2, 3].s'?
auto a = [1, 2, 3]; // int[]
auto[$] b = [1, 2, 3]; // int[3]
I don't really see a strong benefit over 'int[$] a = [1, 2, 3]'
with the exception that you could specify the type in the
latter.
More so, I think having .s is a much better alternative if
there's no substantial advantage to $, because it can also be
used as an expression for purposes such as making function
calls with a static array.
Example:
auto foo = Variant([1, 2, 3].s)
rather than
auto foo = Variant(cast(int[$])[1, 2, 3])
