• Sam (27/27) May 26 2005 I need an 'in' keyword that behaves like the following:
• Brad Beveridge (3/4) May 26 2005 http://digitalmars.com/d/arrays.html
• Derek Parnell (11/14) May 26 2005 int[char[]] theList;
• Chris Sauls (8/9) May 26 2005 Or even just this:
• Derek Parnell (13/23) May 26 2005 I'm quite pedantic with my bools and I don't like to implicitly convert
• Hasan Aljudy (3/44) May 26 2005 There IS an "in" keyword ...

Sam <Sam_member pathlink.com> writes:

I need an 'in' keyword that behaves like the following:

bool b = a in {"AAAA", "BB", "CCCCCC", "Lemon"};

-or-

bool b = a in CollectionObject;
b = a in ArrayObject;

Where the above statement is the same as:

bool b;

switch(a)
{
case "AAAA":
b = 1 // true!!
break;

case "BB":
b = 1;
break;

case "CCCCCC":
b = 1;
break;

case "Lemon":
b = 1;
break;

case else:
b = 0; // false!!  I refuse to use keywords imposed by the MAN!
break;
}

Maybe I use too much SQL, but 'in' used in this fashion would be nice!

See?  I'm not against ALL keywords!!  (-;

Brad Beveridge <brad somewhere.net> writes:

Sam wrote:
 I need an 'in' keyword that behaves like the following:

http://digitalmars.com/d/arrays.html

Brad

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:52:52 +0000 (UTC), Sam wrote:

 I need an 'in' keyword that behaves like the following:
 
 bool b = a in {"AAAA", "BB", "CCCCCC", "Lemon"};

int[char[]] theList;
theList["AAAA"] = 1;
theList["BB"] = 2;
theList["CCCCCC"] = 3;
theList["Lemon"] = 4;

bool b = a in theList ? true : false;


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
27/05/2005 6:10:49 AM

Chris Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:

Derek Parnell wrote:
 bool b = a in theList ? true : false;

Or even just this:



Except he says he doesn't like the 'null' keyword.  And I wonder, would 
a null pointer implicity cast to a 'false' and a valid pointer 
implicitly cast to a 'true'?  Then you could just do:



-- Chris Sauls

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:13:41 -0500, Chris Sauls wrote:

 Derek Parnell wrote:
 bool b = a in theList ? true : false;


I'm quite pedantic with my bools and I don't like to implicitly convert
integers to bools. Just a thing I have... ;-)

 Or even just this:
 


Or more like this ...

 bool b = (a in theList) != null; 

 Except he says he doesn't like the 'null' keyword.  And I wonder, would 
 a null pointer implicity cast to a 'false' and a valid pointer 
 implicitly cast to a 'true'?  Then you could just do:
 


Nup, D is smart enough to realize that pointers are not integers so an
implicit conversion doesn't fly.

Though this (ugly construct) is possible ...

 bool b = !!(a in theList);

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
27/05/2005 12:22:31 PM

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Sam wrote:
 I need an 'in' keyword that behaves like the following:
 
 bool b = a in {"AAAA", "BB", "CCCCCC", "Lemon"};
 
 -or-
 
 bool b = a in CollectionObject;
 b = a in ArrayObject;
 
 Where the above statement is the same as:
 
 bool b;
 
 switch(a)
 {
 case "AAAA":
 b = 1 // true!!
 break;
 
 case "BB":
 b = 1;
 break;
 
 case "CCCCCC":
 b = 1;
 break;
 
 case "Lemon":
 b = 1;
 break;
 
 case else:
 b = 0; // false!!  I refuse to use keywords imposed by the MAN!
 break;
 }
 
 Maybe I use too much SQL, but 'in' used in this fashion would be nice!
 
 See?  I'm not against ALL keywords!!  (-;
 
 

There IS an "in" keyword ...
But I just don't know how to use it.