anonymous static array

2012-03-21 Thread Stephan
Hi, I have an associative array with strings as keys and static arrays as values. When I access a new key, it gives me Range Error, so I think I should initialise the associative array, but how? here is the code that fails: int[100][string] counts; counts[some_key][20]++; //

Re: anonymous static array

2012-03-21 Thread David
Am 21.03.2012 11:51, schrieb Stephan: Hi, I have an associative array with strings as keys and static arrays as values. When I access a new key, it gives me Range Error, so I think I should initialise the associative array, but how? here is the code that fails: int[100][string] counts;

Re: anonymous static array

2012-03-21 Thread Jesse Phillips
On Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 10:51:05 UTC, Stephan wrote: Hi, I have an associative array with strings as keys and static arrays as values. When I access a new key, it gives me Range Error, so I think I should initialise the associative array, but how? here is the code that fails:

Re: anonymous static array

2012-03-21 Thread Vijay Nayar
Jesse's solution is correct, but I thought I'd throw in a comment or two. You are correct that the associative array is uninitialized by default, and that you must initialize it. For very small static arrays, a simple array literal like [1, 2, 3] would suffice, but for larger arrays, this is a

Re: anonymous static array

2012-03-21 Thread bearophile
Jesse Phillips: int[100][string] counts; int[100] a; counts[some_key] = a; counts[some_key][20]++; Someone is currently trying to improve/fix AAs, this seems a problem that is worth trying removing. Bye, bearophile

Re: anonymous static array

2012-03-21 Thread H. S. Teoh
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:15:18PM +0100, bearophile wrote: Jesse Phillips: int[100][string] counts; int[100] a; counts[some_key] = a; counts[some_key][20]++; Someone is currently trying to improve/fix AAs, this seems a problem that is worth trying removing. [...] That

Re: anonymous static array

2012-03-21 Thread Stephan
Thanks everyone. OK, so a temporary variable seems to be the most obvious workaround, thanks Jesse. Thanks also to the others in pointing out this issue. All the best, Stephan On Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 14:19:03 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: On Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 10:51:05 UTC,