• Stewart Gordon (22/22) Mar 29 2004 I've noticed a few oddities in what the compiler will accept in terms of...
• J Anderson (6/23) Mar 29 2004 You can use:
• Manfred Nowak (4/6) Mar 31 2004 [...]
• J Anderson (4/14) Mar 31 2004 Whoops, missed that part.
• Manfred Nowak (14/18) Mar 31 2004 I see this simple reason: it is put onto the stack and therefore the
• Stewart Gordon (12/33) Apr 01 2004 When instantiating a class, it clearly manages to create a copy of the

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

I've noticed a few oddities in what the compiler will accept in terms of 
array initialisation.

A declaration like

	int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];

is valid at the module level, or as a class member.  But within a 
function, the compiler doesn't like it:

	variable qwert is not a static and cannot have static initializer

This seems an arbitrary restriction.  Surely it should be allowed?  The 
same applies to struct initialisation, but I forget if that's quite the 
same.

And something that doesn't seem to be allowed anywhere:

	static int[int] yuiop = [ 4: 5, 10: 6, 69: 30 ];

	Error: cannot use array to initialize int[int]

What should I use to initialise it then? :-)

Seriously, I tried to use something of this form, but couldn't, and 
ended up using a switch.  Surely it should be possible to initialise 
associative arrays just like good old-fashioned linear arrays?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:

 I've noticed a few oddities in what the compiler will accept in terms 
 of array initialisation.

 A declaration like

     int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];

 is valid at the module level, or as a class member.  But within a 
 function, the compiler doesn't like it:

     variable qwert is not a static and cannot have static initializer

 This seems an arbitrary restriction.  Surely it should be allowed?  
 The same applies to struct initialisation, but I forget if that's 
 quite the same.

 And something that doesn't seem to be allowed anywhere:

     static int[int] yuiop = [ 4: 5, 10: 6, 69: 30 ];

     Error: cannot use array to initialize int[int]

 What should I use to initialise it then? :-)

 Seriously, I tried to use something of this form, but couldn't, and 
 ended up using a switch.  Surely it should be possible to initialise 
 associative arrays just like good old-fashioned linear arrays? .


You can use:
const int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];

But seriously this is another thing I'd like supported in D.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

J Anderson wrote:

 You can use:
 const int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];

[...]

And thereby making it static.

So long!

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

Manfred Nowak wrote:

J Anderson wrote:

  

You can use:
const int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];
    

[...]

And thereby making it static.

So long!
  

Whoops, missed that part.


-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:

[...]
 is valid at the module level, or as a class member.  But within a 
 function,

I see this simple reason: it is put onto the stack and therefore the
initialization cannot prepared at compile time. Modules and classes do not
recurse. So there is a difference.

On the other hand I do not understand why it is allowed that the non
static array can be initialized by a static array:

   static int[6] arr1=[1,2];
   int[6] arr2= arr1;  // no error here 

[...]
 Surely it should be allowed?

Maybe, but it would hide the runtime, that is involved.

[associative array initialization]
 What should I use to initialise it then? :-)

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/14684

So long!

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Manfred Nowak wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 
 [...]
 
 is valid at the module level, or as a class member.  But within a 
 function,

 
 I see this simple reason: it is put onto the stack and therefore the 
 initialization cannot prepared at compile time. Modules and classes do not 
 recurse. So there is a difference.

When instantiating a class, it clearly manages to create a copy of the 
initialisation data.  So why can't it do the same when instantiating a 
stack frame for a function?  Even C manages to do this!

 On the other hand I do not understand why it is allowed that the non 
 static array can be initialized by a static array:
 
    static int[6] arr1=[1,2];
    int[6] arr2= arr1;  // no error here 

Thanks for the workaround!

 [...]
 
 Surely it should be allowed?

 
 
 Maybe, but it would hide the runtime, that is involved.

<snip>

Pardon?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.