Re: int[] as constructor
On 12/5/18 12:00 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: But in cases where you aren't assigning a variable, float[](1.0, 2.1, 3.5) would be more desirable than casting (since casting is dangerous). Sorry, I meant float[]([1.0, 2.1, 3.5]) -Steve
Re: int[] as constructor
On 12/5/18 5:34 AM, Stanislav Blinov wrote: On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 at 23:28:42 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Well OK, for int[] it's kinda silly 'cos that's the default, but in my code I've often had to write things like: auto z = cast(float[]) [ 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 ]; Err, auto z = [ 1.0f, 2, 3 ]; ? But that's only because 2 promotes to float. If it's 2.0 (or let's make it 2.1 so you can't have the int cop-out), then you have to tag all the elements (a bit annoying). However, you can also do float[] z = [1.0, 2.0, 3.0]; which is what I'd prefer, and isn't as verbose as either the cast or the OP's suggestion. But in cases where you aren't assigning a variable, float[](1.0, 2.1, 3.5) would be more desirable than casting (since casting is dangerous). I would say we should allow such usage. And it doesn't conflict with array multi-dimensional allocation, since that accepts not a literal, but an argument list of sizes. -Steve
Re: int[] as constructor
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 at 23:28:42 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Well OK, for int[] it's kinda silly 'cos that's the default, but in my code I've often had to write things like: auto z = cast(float[]) [ 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 ]; Err, auto z = [ 1.0f, 2, 3 ]; ?
Re: int[] as constructor
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 at 22:35:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 3:17:04 PM MST jmh530 via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: I've noticed that I can use int like a constructor, as in: int x = int(1); but I can't do the same thing with slices int[] y = int[]([1, 2]); Is there something I'm missing here or is this a potential enhancement? It can make some types of generic code a little more annoying. Using parens with dynamic arrays already has a different meaning. It's how you provide the size of the dynamic array. e.g. [snip] I don't think I either knew or had remembered this, thanks.
Re: int[] as constructor
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:17:04PM +, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > I've noticed that I can use int like a constructor, as in: > int x = int(1); > but I can't do the same thing with slices > int[] y = int[]([1, 2]); > > Is there something I'm missing here or is this a potential > enhancement? It can make some types of generic code a little more > annoying. For built-in types, you can just write: int[] y = cast(int[]) [ 1, 2 ]; Well OK, for int[] it's kinda silly 'cos that's the default, but in my code I've often had to write things like: auto z = cast(float[]) [ 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 ]; because otherwise it would be inferred as double[]. But yeah, this wouldn't work so well in generic code where you might be constructing a user-defined type. What Andrei said about people not wanting built-in types to behave differently from user-defined types holds true here. In an ideal language, there would be no lexical distinction between the two, and generic code would Just Work(tm). D is a lot closer to this ideal than many other languages, I daresay even the majority of languages, but alas, it's not completely there. T -- Without geometry, life would be pointless. -- VS
Re: int[] as constructor
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 3:17:04 PM MST jmh530 via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > I've noticed that I can use int like a constructor, as in: > int x = int(1); > but I can't do the same thing with slices > int[] y = int[]([1, 2]); > > Is there something I'm missing here or is this a potential > enhancement? It can make some types of generic code a little more > annoying. Using parens with dynamic arrays already has a different meaning. It's how you provide the size of the dynamic array. e.g. auto x = int[](12); or auto x = int[][](3, 4); In the first level, you can put the number in between the brackets instead - e.g. auto x = int[12]; but that falls apart at deeper levels, because the number in between the brackets would then mean a static array (making it so that you have a dynamic array of a static array). So, in the general case, parens are how you provide a dynamic array's length. This was true long before it became possible to use parens for construction with built-in types like you do with user-defined types. - Jonathan M Davis
int[] as constructor
I've noticed that I can use int like a constructor, as in: int x = int(1); but I can't do the same thing with slices int[] y = int[]([1, 2]); Is there something I'm missing here or is this a potential enhancement? It can make some types of generic code a little more annoying.
