Re: D Uniform initialization {}
On Sunday, 23 October 2016 at 01:31:47 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Saturday, 22 October 2016 at 21:26:53 UTC, Patric Dexheimer
wrote:
S[] s = [{ 1, 2 }];
Nice, did´n knew that it worked.
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 21:41:16 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Because there is no need. In c++ it is disaster because there
is milion way how to initialize something, it is really hard
to understand and inconsistent
I never really felt lost about it with c++, but the argument
holds true anyway :)
There has been a abandoned proposal for struct initialization:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/22
It has been closed only because of inactivity.
Re: D Uniform initialization {}
On Saturday, 22 October 2016 at 21:26:53 UTC, Patric Dexheimer
wrote:
S[] s = [{ 1, 2 }];
Nice, did´n knew that it worked.
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 21:41:16 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Because there is no need. In c++ it is disaster because there
is milion way how to initialize something, it is really hard
to understand and inconsistent
I never really felt lost about it with c++, but the argument
holds true anyway :)
There has been a abandoned proposal for struct initialization:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/22
Re: D Uniform initialization {}
S[] s = [{ 1, 2 }];
Nice, did´n knew that it worked.
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 21:41:16 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Because there is no need. In c++ it is disaster because there
is milion way how to initialize something, it is really hard to
understand and inconsistent
I never really felt lost about it with c++, but the argument
holds true anyway :)
Re: D Uniform initialization {}
Dne 21.10.2016 v 23:21 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 19:20:25 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Dne 21.10.2016 v 20:49 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance of this
on D?
No (I hope so)
There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear.
Can you elaborate on this?
I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used structs.
(which i think is awkward sometimes)
Why? (I do not see any relation to Uniform initialization)
egs:
//D
alias vec3 = Tuple!(float, "x", float, "y", float, "z");
vec3[] vectors = [
vec3(1.0,0.0,1.0),
vec3(2.0,1.0,1.0),
vec3(3.0,2.0,1.0)
];
//C++ equivalent
vec3 vectors[] = {
{1.0,0.0,1.0},
{2.0,1.0,1.0},
{3.0,2.0,1.0}
};
this works for D too:
import std.stdio;
struct S
{
int a;
int b;
}
void main()
{
S[] s = [{ 1, 2 }];
writeln(s[0]);
}
//D
auto return_value = get_struct(); //don´t need to write the return type
set_struct( StructName(value1, value2) );
//C++
set_struct( {value1, value2} ); //don´t need to write the argument type
OK this does not work but I do not think it is releated to Uniform
initialization, but it is more something like cast to parametr type or
something like that
Can you explain why you think is a bad idea?
Because there is no need. In c++ it is disaster because there is milion
way how to initialize something, it is really hard to understand and
inconsistent
Re: D Uniform initialization {}
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 19:20:25 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Dne 21.10.2016 v 20:49 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d
napsal(a):
Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance
of this on D?
No (I hope so)
There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear.
Can you elaborate on this?
I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used
structs. (which i think is awkward sometimes)
Why? (I do not see any relation to Uniform initialization)
egs:
//D
alias vec3 = Tuple!(float, "x", float, "y", float, "z");
vec3[] vectors = [
vec3(1.0,0.0,1.0),
vec3(2.0,1.0,1.0),
vec3(3.0,2.0,1.0)
];
//C++ equivalent
vec3 vectors[] = {
{1.0,0.0,1.0},
{2.0,1.0,1.0},
{3.0,2.0,1.0}
};
//D
auto return_value = get_struct(); //don´t need to write the
return type
set_struct( StructName(value1, value2) );
//C++
set_struct( {value1, value2} ); //don´t need to write the
argument type
//D in case of large struct names
alias v = VeryLargeStructName; //not cool
v[] vectors = [
v(1.0,0.0,1.0),
v(2.0,1.0,1.0),
v(3.0,2.0,1.0)
];
I find myself falling with frequency on examples that will
benefit from the c++ uniform initialization.
"No (I hope so)"
Can you explain why you think is a bad idea?
Re: D Uniform initialization {}
Dne 21.10.2016 v 20:49 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance of this on D? No (I hope so) There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear. Can you elaborate on this? I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used structs. (which i think is awkward sometimes) Why? (I do not see any relation to Uniform initialization)
D Uniform initialization {}
Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance of this on D? (one of the few things that i miss from c++) There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear. I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used structs. (which i think is awkward sometimes) I know there is the case of being ambiguous with lambdas, but after reading this thread https://forum.dlang.org/thread/nud21i$o29$1...@digitalmars.com uniform initialization comes to my mind again :)
