Steve Schveighoffer wrote:
If someone has an array, and they want to trim one element off the
end, it would be feasible they may write:
array.length -= 1;
vs the more verbose
array = array[0..$-1];
Letting these two statements do something different is a mistake in
my mind.
Agreed.
What about a "minimize" function, which simply truncates any
"allocated" length after an array. So you would reset an array via:
arr.length = 0; arr.minimize();
The advantage here is the array's length is not affected, just the
allocated length is reduced to match the array's length. There are
less invalid cases to worry about (i.e. "shrinking" to something
larger doesn't make any sense).
Sounds good. I'd choose a more specific name, e.g. shrinkToFit. Minimize
has me think of optimization functions.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
