On 7/10/20 4:15 AM, Max Samukha wrote:
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 21:04:57 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Why isn't [] accepted as an empty AA literal?
Because it's an empty dynamic array literal.
If D were to accept an empty AA literal, I'd expect it to be [:].
Just as typeof(null)
On Friday, 10 July 2020 at 03:59:37 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Meh. You could say the same about foo(int[]), or
foo(SomeClass). AAs are reference types. Reference type
instances can be null.
Oh, that actually makes sense. I always thought assoc arrays are
value types.
Anyway, even if they are
On Friday, 10 July 2020 at 08:15:24 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
a unfortunate
an unfortunate
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 21:04:57 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Why isn't [] accepted as an empty AA literal?
Because it's an empty dynamic array literal.
If D were to accept an empty AA literal, I'd expect it to be
[:].
-Steve
Just as typeof(null) is a subtype of all nullable
On Friday, 10 July 2020 at 03:59:37 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 21:13:49 UTC, JN wrote:
Interesting. Often in D discussion, an argument pops up that
the language should be protecting against hidden breakages
from API changes. This would be an example of that
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 21:13:49 UTC, JN wrote:
Interesting. Often in D discussion, an argument pops up that
the language should be protecting against hidden breakages from
API changes. This would be an example of that happening.
void foo(int[int] bar), someone calls it with a null,
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 20:08:47 UTC, Anonymouse wrote:
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 19:53:42 UTC, JN wrote:
void foo(int[int] bar)
{
// ...
}
Is it possible to send an empty array literal?
foo( [ 0 : 2 ] ) works
foo( [] ) doesn't
int[int] empty;
foo(empty);
works but it's two lines
On 7/9/20 5:13 PM, JN wrote:
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 20:24:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 7/9/20 4:04 PM, JN wrote:
Hmm, foo(null) seems to work, but is it correct way to do it?
Yes, that is correct.
Interesting. Often in D discussion, an argument pops up that the
language
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 20:24:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 7/9/20 4:04 PM, JN wrote:
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 19:53:42 UTC, JN wrote:
void foo(int[int] bar)
{
// ...
}
Is it possible to send an empty array literal?
foo( [ 0 : 2 ] ) works
foo( [] ) doesn't
int[int]
On 7/9/20 4:31 PM, Max Samukha wrote:
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 20:24:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Yes, that is correct.
Why isn't [] accepted as an empty AA literal?
Because it's an empty dynamic array literal.
If D were to accept an empty AA literal, I'd expect it to be [:].
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 20:24:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Yes, that is correct.
-Steve
Why isn't [] accepted as an empty AA literal?
On 7/9/20 4:04 PM, JN wrote:
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 19:53:42 UTC, JN wrote:
void foo(int[int] bar)
{
// ...
}
Is it possible to send an empty array literal?
foo( [ 0 : 2 ] ) works
foo( [] ) doesn't
int[int] empty;
foo(empty);
works but it's two lines
Hmm, foo(null) seems to
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 19:53:42 UTC, JN wrote:
void foo(int[int] bar)
{
// ...
}
Is it possible to send an empty array literal?
foo( [ 0 : 2 ] ) works
foo( [] ) doesn't
int[int] empty;
foo(empty);
works but it's two lines
I always did foo((int[int]).init);
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 19:53:42 UTC, JN wrote:
foo( [] ) doesn't
Should work in principle, but you can foo(null) to work around.
On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 19:53:42 UTC, JN wrote:
void foo(int[int] bar)
{
// ...
}
Is it possible to send an empty array literal?
foo( [ 0 : 2 ] ) works
foo( [] ) doesn't
int[int] empty;
foo(empty);
works but it's two lines
Hmm, foo(null) seems to work, but is it correct way to do
15 matches
Mail list logo
