On 02/19/2012 04:17 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, February 19, 2012 04:13:02 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/19/2012 03:24 AM, bearophile wrote:
Timon Gehr:
Is there any reason for empty arrays to evaluate to true? This is very
bug prone.
Related?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4733
Bye,
bearophile
Roughly. I want it to be allowed, but to test the length instead of ptr.
That would potentially break code.
It would also potentially fix code.
It also makes arrays less consistent with
other types that can be null,
If so, then in a good way.
but the weirdness with [] == null already does
that on some level.
If you think that is weird, consider this:
static assert([1,2,3] == [1,2,3]);
My general take on it is that you should just be aware that you need to use
arr.empty when you mean empty and arr !is null when you mean null. So,
if(arr)
is the kind of code that should just be avoided with arrays.
Why? (step back a moment and stop thinking about what you know about
DMDs implementation semantics and then answer)
