Travis Boucher, el 5 de noviembre a las 20:44 me escribiste: > >>>I don't think that this is easy to explain to a learner; and I think that > >>>is a good indicator that there is a problem with these semantics. > >>The ball is in your court to define better semantics. > > > >Just make arrays a reference value, like classes! > > You mean dynamic arrays, but what about static arrays?
I would say "make them value types", but they already are ;) > Sometimes it makes more sense to send a static array as a value rather > then a reference (think in the case of small vectors). That's why they already are value types. > Then we'd have 2 semantics for arrays, one for static arrays and one > for dynamic arrays. Yes. They should have different semantics because they are different. > I am not fully against pass-by-ref arrays, I just think in passing by > reference all of the time could have some performance implications. OK, make 2 different types then: slices (value types, can't append, they are only a view on other's data) and dynamic arrays (reference type, can append, but a little slower to manipulate). It's a shame this idea didn't came true after all... -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - i bet microsoft's developers were on diet when they had to do win95 - microsoft has developers?
