• Sean L. Palmer (25/25) Jan 30 2004 What about this:
• Vathix (13/45) Jan 30 2004 Well, you can do this:
• Manfred Nowak (10/15) Jan 30 2004 [...]
• Sean L. Palmer (8/53) Jan 30 2004 It's for the cases where the struct author goes and changes the struct f...

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:

What about this:

struct Foo
{
    int bar, baz, bam;
};

Foo[] myfoo =  // D already has this stuff AFAIK
{
    { 0, 1, 2 }, // you don't have to use names, but then you are dependent
on order
    { bar = 3, baz = 4, bam = 5 }, // you can use names
    { bam = 8, baz = 7, bar = 6 }, // order doesn't matter when named
}

Foo[] myfoo2 =    // new part
    ( baz, bam, bar )        // gives the field order the following list
initializer uses
{
    { 1, 2, 0 },        // uses order given above
    { 4, 5, 3 },
    { baz = 7, bar = 6, bam = 8 } // you can still use explicit names if you
want
}

And as you can surmise, myfoo and myfoo2 end up containing identical data.

Whaddya think?  Not 100% sure parens are the best thing to use...  the
general idea is more important than the exact syntax.

Sean

Vathix <vathix dprogramming.com> writes:

Sean L. Palmer wrote:

 What about this:
 
 struct Foo
 {
     int bar, baz, bam;
 };
 
 Foo[] myfoo =  // D already has this stuff AFAIK
 {
     { 0, 1, 2 }, // you don't have to use names, but then you are dependent
 on order
     { bar = 3, baz = 4, bam = 5 }, // you can use names
     { bam = 8, baz = 7, bar = 6 }, // order doesn't matter when named
 }
 
 Foo[] myfoo2 =    // new part
     ( baz, bam, bar )        // gives the field order the following list
 initializer uses
 {
     { 1, 2, 0 },        // uses order given above
     { 4, 5, 3 },
     { baz = 7, bar = 6, bam = 8 } // you can still use explicit names if you
 want
 }
 
 And as you can surmise, myfoo and myfoo2 end up containing identical data.
 
 Whaddya think?  Not 100% sure parens are the best thing to use...  the
 general idea is more important than the exact syntax.
 
 Sean
 


Well, you can do this:

struct Foo
{
     int bar, baz, bam;
}

Foo[] myfoo =  [
	{ 0, 1, 2 },
	{ bar: 3, baz: 4, bam: 5 },
	{ bam: 8, baz: 7, bar: 6 },
];

Don't know if I like your field ordering thing though; would it really 
get used, or confused?

Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

Vathix wrote:

 Well, you can do this:

[...]
 Foo[] myfoo =  [
      { 0, 1, 2 },

[...]

Confirmed. But this should be a bug because the docs say:

| If a static initializer is supplied, the members are initialized
| by the member name, colon, expression syntax. 


 Don't know if I like your field ordering thing though; would it
 really get used, or confused?

If the member names have to be mentioned, and I think they should, then 
in arrays they truly will be used to spare the typing of member names 
again and again.

So long.

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:

It's for the cases where the struct author goes and changes the struct field
order after you wrote your initializer.  Keeps things from breaking.

Sean

"Vathix" <vathix dprogramming.com> wrote in message
news:bvdfvs$2o6s$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Sean L. Palmer wrote:

 What about this:

 struct Foo
 {
     int bar, baz, bam;
 };

 Foo[] myfoo =  // D already has this stuff AFAIK
 {
     { 0, 1, 2 }, // you don't have to use names, but then you are


dependent
 on order
     { bar = 3, baz = 4, bam = 5 }, // you can use names
     { bam = 8, baz = 7, bar = 6 }, // order doesn't matter when named
 }

 Foo[] myfoo2 =    // new part
     ( baz, bam, bar )        // gives the field order the following list
 initializer uses
 {
     { 1, 2, 0 },        // uses order given above
     { 4, 5, 3 },
     { baz = 7, bar = 6, bam = 8 } // you can still use explicit names if


you
 want
 }

 And as you can surmise, myfoo and myfoo2 end up containing identical


data.
 Whaddya think?  Not 100% sure parens are the best thing to use...  the
 general idea is more important than the exact syntax.

 Sean


 Well, you can do this:

 struct Foo
 {
      int bar, baz, bam;
 }

 Foo[] myfoo =  [
 { 0, 1, 2 },
 { bar: 3, baz: 4, bam: 5 },
 { bam: 8, baz: 7, bar: 6 },
 ];

 Don't know if I like your field ordering thing though; would it really
 get used, or confused?