On 01/07/12 17:10, Don wrote: > On 07.01.2012 04:18, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > Also consider how the hard-coding of associative arrays in >> an awkward interface inside the runtime has stifled efficient >> implementations, progress, and innovation in that area. Still a lot of >> work needed there, too, to essentially undo a bad decision. > > Sorry Andrei, I have to disagree with that in the strongest possible terms. I > would have mentioned AAs as a very strong argument in the opposite direction! > > Moving AAs from a built-in to a library type has been an unmitigated disaster > from the implementation side. And it has so far brought us *nothing* in > return. Not "hardly anything", but *NOTHING*. I don't even have any idea of > what good could possibly come from it. Note that you CANNOT have multiple > implementations on a given platform, or you'll get linker errors! So I think > there is more pain to come from it. > It seems to have been motivated by religious reasons and nothing more. > Why should anyone believe the same argument again? >
Reminded me of this: "static immutable string[string] aa = [ "a": "b" ];" isn't currently possible (AA literals are non-const expressions); could this work w/o compiler support?.. artur
