On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:09:14 -0500, Don <[email protected]> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:53:51 -0500, Don <[email protected]> wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
We're entering the finale of D2 and I want to keep a short list of
things that must be done and integrated in the release. It is clearly
understood by all of us that there are many things that could and
probably should be done.
1. Currently Walter and Don are diligently fixing the problems
marked on the current manuscript.
2. User-defined operators must be revamped.
Should opIndex and opSlice be merged?
This would be simpler, and would allow multi-dimensional slicing.
Probably the simplest way to do this would be to use fixed length
arrays of length 2 for slices.
So, for example, if the indices are integers, then
opIndex(int x) { } is the 1-D index, and
opIndex(int[2] x) {} is a slice from x[0] to x[1],
which exactly corresponding to the current opSlice(x[0]..x[1]).
I hope you still mean to allow arguments other than int.
Read it.
"So, _for example_, if the indices are integers,".
D'oh, sorry for the noise :(
Also, how does this work with Andrei's "opBinary" proposal?
I don't know -- I'm not proposing a solution to the
indexing-and-slicing-expression issues. Still, combining indexing and
slicing helps a little. But I don't yet know if the opBinary concept
will work.
I think the problem of verbosity in operator overloads (opAdd, opMul,
... all being nearly the same) is very unimportant and shouldn't be the
focus of attention. Two things matter:
(1) expressivity; and
(2) performance.
If you don't have these two, your verbosity will be shot to pieces
anyway.
This proposal, together with opDollar(), closes the last remaining
element of (1).
I agree.
-Steve
