D - [BUG?] cannot subscript an array by uint
- Matthew (5/5) Apr 21 2004 value_type[] e = new value_type[length];
-
Stewart Gordon
(12/15)
Apr 21 2004
- Matthew (3/18) Apr 21 2004 You were right. It's the failure to convert the property.
- J Anderson (5/11) Apr 21 2004 Shouldn't opApply use an uint. Or at-least provide the overload? Why
- Matthew (7/25) Apr 21 2004 Sorry dude, I don't follow your response. As shown, the code doesn't hav...
- J Anderson (6/13) Apr 21 2004 Sorry I don't follow. Negatives with opApply you should use int if you
- Matthew (11/24) Apr 21 2004 Sorry mate, I'm lost. I was illustrating how subscripting should support...
value_type[] e = new value_type[length]; "list.d(519): cannot implicitly convert uint() to int" value_type[] e = new value_type[cast(int)(length)]; compiles ok Surely this is wrong?
Apr 21 2004
Matthew wrote:
value_type[] e = new value_type[length];
"list.d(519): cannot implicitly convert uint() to int"
<snip>
That suggests to me the bug (?) whereby addressing a property without ()
doesn't work in all situations.
Does
value_type[] e = new value_type[length()];
work in your case?
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.
Apr 21 2004
"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> You were right. It's the failure to convert the property. "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c65jc2$8b4$1 digitaldaemon.com...Matthew wrote:value_type[] e = new value_type[length]; "list.d(519): cannot implicitly convert uint() to int"<snip> That suggests to me the bug (?) whereby addressing a property without () doesn't work in all situations. Does value_type[] e = new value_type[length()]; work in your case? 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.
Apr 21 2004
Matthew wrote:value_type[] e = new value_type[length]; "list.d(519): cannot implicitly convert uint() to int" value_type[] e = new value_type[cast(int)(length)]; compiles ok Surely this is wrong?Shouldn't opApply use an uint. Or at-least provide the overload? Why use negative numbers for arrays anyway? -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Apr 21 2004
Sorry dude, I don't follow your response. As shown, the code doesn't have anything to do with opApply(), it's just talking about an array. As for -ves with arrays, that is useful, because one might pass a pointer to somewhere in the middle of an array, in which case a -ve index is eminently meaningful. "J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:c65k0v$92k$3 digitaldaemon.com...Matthew wrote:value_type[] e = new value_type[length]; "list.d(519): cannot implicitly convert uint() to int" value_type[] e = new value_type[cast(int)(length)]; compiles ok Surely this is wrong?Shouldn't opApply use an uint. Or at-least provide the overload? Why use negative numbers for arrays anyway? -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Apr 21 2004
Matthew wrote:Sorry dude, I don't follow your response. As shown, the code doesn't have anything to do with opApply(), it's just talking about an array.Sorry, your right. Didn't read the code properly <g>As for -ves with arrays, that is useful, because one might pass a pointer to somewhere in the middle of an array, in which case a -ve index is eminently meaningful.Sorry I don't follow. Negatives with opApply you should use int if you want negatives. Negatives with arrays... the coder should be explicit. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Apr 21 2004
"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:c6614u$vr7$1 digitaldaemon.com...Matthew wrote:Sorry mate, I'm lost. I was illustrating how subscripting should support (but not require; hence my post) signed types. I didn't mention opApply at all. For the record, I have objected several times to Walter about opApply() using an int. I believe it should use an enum which contains only one publicly known value - "ok" (or "complete" or some such). All the author of an opApply() should be able to do is test whether the delegate return is == / != "ok". As it currently stands, the author of opApply() is able to write all kinds of unknown bad code by returning one of the magic numbers that the freach mechanism uses to indicate break, complete, whatever.Sorry dude, I don't follow your response. As shown, the code doesn't have anything to do with opApply(), it's just talking about an array.Sorry, your right. Didn't read the code properly <g>As for -ves with arrays, that is useful, because one might pass a pointer to somewhere in the middle of an array, in which case a -ve index is eminently meaningful.Sorry I don't follow. Negatives with opApply you should use int if you want negatives. Negatives with arrays... the coder should be explicit.
Apr 21 2004