www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - HEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply Martin Desperate <Martin_member pathlink.com> writes:
 Now throws an ArrayBoundsError if accessing an associative array with a key
that is not already in the array. Previously, the key would be added to the
array.




All my work depends on previous behavior. My business logic is based on it.
About 1 year of work, and this is not only hobby, but I was also hoping to get
some commercial proffit from it.

Why should it throw an error? Take PHP, it does not give you an error on that
occation. I have implemented a scripting language (in my project) and
assosiative arrays have been much imporantce the way they where. 

In my mind the correct behaviour would be return the type default value if the
element is not present (why waste memory in creating it) and not give an error.

Or if you like there could be a keyword like 'loose' (opposite of strict) and in
that the AA-s would not throw an error but give type default value.

Certanly the old (or old like) behavior is VERY important.

By the way does someone have 0.0125 for me? I might be stuck with it for a very
long time.
Jul 12 2005
next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <db16tr$1bnc$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Martin Desperate says...

 Now throws an ArrayBoundsError if accessing an associative array with a key
that is not already in the array. Previously, the key would be added to the
array.




All my work depends on previous behavior. My business logic is based on it.
About 1 year of work, and this is not only hobby, but I was also hoping to get
some commercial proffit from it.


Okay, so I don't plan to make any money off of D, but you do realize D's still
in beta testing, right? We're getting a sneak peak at the movie, but the
director might yet decide to film an alternate ending based on our input (or
even skip the theatres entirely and go directly to DVD).

..snip...


By the way does someone have 0.0125 for me? I might be stuck with it for a very
long time.


I hope you mean DMD 0.125 because I'm pretty sure no one has version 0.0125.

From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0125,
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.125.zip

jcc7
Jul 12 2005
parent reply Martin Desperate <Martin_member pathlink.com> writes:
Thank you for your answer.
Yes I mean the 0.125, thank you, I didn't notice that now it can be downloaded
from that place.


Okay, so I don't plan to make any money off of D, but you do realize D's still
in beta testing, right? We're getting a sneak peak at the movie, but the
director might yet decide to film an alternate ending based on our input (or
even skip the theatres entirely and go directly to DVD).


Ok, but what should I do? I don't like PHP at all, it very easy to write low
quality code in it but very hard to write high quality.
I did my last web application in C++ and it was no fun att all. 
The best solution would be Java servkets and jsp, but I am no fan of Java and
Java is also much slower than D.

Using D 0.125 would be still better than to use other languages for know. (And
for future then it might be wise for me to write a code reconverter or
something.)
But it would still be quite frustrating this change, also because I think the
AA-s had some point as they where before. (Or better as I described: not
creating an element just returning default value.)







In article <db17n1$1clo$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...

In article <db16tr$1bnc$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Martin Desperate says...

 Now throws an ArrayBoundsError if accessing an associative array with a key
that is not already in the array. Previously, the key would be added to the
array.




All my work depends on previous behavior. My business logic is based on it.
About 1 year of work, and this is not only hobby, but I was also hoping to get
some commercial proffit from it.


Okay, so I don't plan to make any money off of D, but you do realize D's still
in beta testing, right? We're getting a sneak peak at the movie, but the
director might yet decide to film an alternate ending based on our input (or
even skip the theatres entirely and go directly to DVD).

..snip...


By the way does someone have 0.0125 for me? I might be stuck with it for a very
long time.


I hope you mean DMD 0.125 because I'm pretty sure no one has version 0.0125.

From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0125,
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.125.zip

jcc7
Jul 12 2005
next sibling parent reply Martin <Martin_member pathlink.com> writes:
Maybe there should be a get method for AA-s that acts differently from just
reading the value.
b=M["first"];
b=M.get("first")

So both ways are covered. 
I would suggest that the .get will raise an error and the other one just return
a value. I someone want's to write a strict code then this someone wouldn't mind
to write some more letters (but not other way around). 
Or make it other way arond if you want. But it is VERY inportant that these
arrays could be used both ways!


In article <db18ip$1ddf$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Martin Desperate says...

Thank you for your answer.
Yes I mean the 0.125, thank you, I didn't notice that now it can be downloaded
from that place.


Okay, so I don't plan to make any money off of D, but you do realize D's still
in beta testing, right? We're getting a sneak peak at the movie, but the
director might yet decide to film an alternate ending based on our input (or
even skip the theatres entirely and go directly to DVD).


Ok, but what should I do? I don't like PHP at all, it very easy to write low
quality code in it but very hard to write high quality.
I did my last web application in C++ and it was no fun att all. 
The best solution would be Java servkets and jsp, but I am no fan of Java and
Java is also much slower than D.

Using D 0.125 would be still better than to use other languages for know. (And
for future then it might be wise for me to write a code reconverter or
something.)
But it would still be quite frustrating this change, also because I think the
AA-s had some point as they where before. (Or better as I described: not
creating an element just returning default value.)







In article <db17n1$1clo$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...

In article <db16tr$1bnc$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Martin Desperate says...

 Now throws an ArrayBoundsError if accessing an associative array with a key
that is not already in the array. Previously, the key would be added to the
array.




All my work depends on previous behavior. My business logic is based on it.
About 1 year of work, and this is not only hobby, but I was also hoping to get
some commercial proffit from it.


Okay, so I don't plan to make any money off of D, but you do realize D's still
in beta testing, right? We're getting a sneak peak at the movie, but the
director might yet decide to film an alternate ending based on our input (or
even skip the theatres entirely and go directly to DVD).

..snip...


By the way does someone have 0.0125 for me? I might be stuck with it for a very
long time.


I hope you mean DMD 0.125 because I'm pretty sure no one has version 0.0125.

From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0125,
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.125.zip

jcc7
Jul 12 2005
next sibling parent "Uwe Salomon" <post uwesalomon.de> writes:
If you like you can use the Indigo associative containers. They are quite  
easy to learn, also fast, and have unambiguous member functions that do  
what their Qt equivalents do. And the rvalue index does not throw an  
exception, does not insert values, but returns the default value.

Ciao
uwe
Jul 12 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Charles" <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Why not a quick grep, and just replace with

"key" in aa ? value = aa["key"] : aa["key"] = valueType.init;

?

I dont like either behavior really ( old or new ) , but the new _is_ the
lesser evil ;).

Charlie

"Martin" <Martin_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:db19ec$1e46$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Maybe there should be a get method for AA-s that acts differently from


just

 reading the value.
 b=M["first"];
 b=M.get("first")

 So both ways are covered.
 I would suggest that the .get will raise an error and the other one just


return

 a value. I someone want's to write a strict code then this someone


wouldn't mind

 to write some more letters (but not other way around).
 Or make it other way arond if you want. But it is VERY inportant that


these

 arrays could be used both ways!


 In article <db18ip$1ddf$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Martin Desperate says...

Thank you for your answer.
Yes I mean the 0.125, thank you, I didn't notice that now it can be




downloaded

from that place.


Okay, so I don't plan to make any money off of D, but you do realize D's






still

in beta testing, right? We're getting a sneak peak at the movie, but the
director might yet decide to film an alternate ending based on our input






(or

even skip the theatres entirely and go directly to DVD).


Ok, but what should I do? I don't like PHP at all, it very easy to write




low

quality code in it but very hard to write high quality.
I did my last web application in C++ and it was no fun att all.
The best solution would be Java servkets and jsp, but I am no fan of Java




and

Java is also much slower than D.

Using D 0.125 would be still better than to use other languages for know.




(And

for future then it might be wise for me to write a code reconverter or
something.)
But it would still be quite frustrating this change, also because I think




the

AA-s had some point as they where before. (Or better as I described: not
creating an element just returning default value.)







In article <db17n1$1clo$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...

In article <db16tr$1bnc$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Martin Desperate says...

 Now throws an ArrayBoundsError if accessing an associative array












with a key that is not already in the array. Previously, the key would be
added to the array.

All my work depends on previous behavior. My business logic is based on








it.

About 1 year of work, and this is not only hobby, but I was also hoping








to get

some commercial proffit from it.


Okay, so I don't plan to make any money off of D, but you do realize D's






still

in beta testing, right? We're getting a sneak peak at the movie, but the
director might yet decide to film an alternate ending based on our input






(or

even skip the theatres entirely and go directly to DVD).

..snip...


By the way does someone have 0.0125 for me? I might be stuck with it








for a very

long time.


I hope you mean DMD 0.125 because I'm pretty sure no one has version






0.0125.

From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0125,
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.125.zip

jcc7
Jul 12 2005
parent reply M <M_member pathlink.com> writes:
Thank you. 

I think I should do some kind of grepping, but it won't be easy because I have
quite complex issues like M[K["n_"~getqt(s)]~"_standard"][5] (where both M and K
are AA-s) and so on.


I dont like either behavior really ( old or new )




What would you like?

Regards,
Martin



In article <db1aq5$1fa7$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Charles says...

Why not a quick grep, and just replace with

"key" in aa ? value = aa["key"] : aa["key"] = valueType.init;

?

I dont like either behavior really ( old or new ) , but the new _is_ the
lesser evil ;).

Charlie

"Martin" <Martin_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:db19ec$1e46$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Maybe there should be a get method for AA-s that acts differently from


just

 reading the value.
 b=M["first"];
 b=M.get("first")

 So both ways are covered.
 I would suggest that the .get will raise an error and the other one just


return

 a value. I someone want's to write a strict code then this someone


wouldn't mind

 to write some more letters (but not other way around).
 Or make it other way arond if you want. But it is VERY inportant that


these

 arrays could be used both ways!


 In article <db18ip$1ddf$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Martin Desperate says...

Thank you for your answer.
Yes I mean the 0.125, thank you, I didn't notice that now it can be




downloaded

from that place.


Okay, so I don't plan to make any money off of D, but you do realize D's






still

in beta testing, right? We're getting a sneak peak at the movie, but the
director might yet decide to film an alternate ending based on our input






(or

even skip the theatres entirely and go directly to DVD).


Ok, but what should I do? I don't like PHP at all, it very easy to write




low

quality code in it but very hard to write high quality.
I did my last web application in C++ and it was no fun att all.
The best solution would be Java servkets and jsp, but I am no fan of Java




and

Java is also much slower than D.

Using D 0.125 would be still better than to use other languages for know.




(And

for future then it might be wise for me to write a code reconverter or
something.)
But it would still be quite frustrating this change, also because I think




the

AA-s had some point as they where before. (Or better as I described: not
creating an element just returning default value.)







In article <db17n1$1clo$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...

In article <db16tr$1bnc$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Martin Desperate says...

 Now throws an ArrayBoundsError if accessing an associative array












with a key that is not already in the array. Previously, the key would be
added to the array.

All my work depends on previous behavior. My business logic is based on








it.

About 1 year of work, and this is not only hobby, but I was also hoping








to get

some commercial proffit from it.


Okay, so I don't plan to make any money off of D, but you do realize D's






still

in beta testing, right? We're getting a sneak peak at the movie, but the
director might yet decide to film an alternate ending based on our input






(or

even skip the theatres entirely and go directly to DVD).

..snip...


By the way does someone have 0.0125 for me? I might be stuck with it








for a very

long time.


I hope you mean DMD 0.125 because I'm pretty sure no one has version






0.0125.

From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0125,
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.125.zip

jcc7
Jul 12 2005
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
"M" <M_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:db1cpm$1h6e$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Thank you.

 I think I should do some kind of grepping, but it won't be easy because I 
 have
 quite complex issues like M[K["n_"~getqt(s)]~"_standard"][5] (where both M 
 and K
 are AA-s) and so on.


out of curiosity, what is the type of M? If the value type is a dynamic 
array then the [5] would end up throwing an ArrayIndexException if 
"_standard" wasn't in the map since inserting "_standard" would have set the 
value to be an empty array. If the value type was a static array then the 
[5] would work but my assumption is that "_standard" shouldn't be a key M.
Jul 12 2005
parent Martin <Martin_member pathlink.com> writes:
Yes you are right,this yould have given me an error also before. 

In article <db1u3k$1um4$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...

"M" <M_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:db1cpm$1h6e$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Thank you.

 I think I should do some kind of grepping, but it won't be easy because I 
 have
 quite complex issues like M[K["n_"~getqt(s)]~"_standard"][5] (where both M 
 and K
 are AA-s) and so on.


out of curiosity, what is the type of M? If the value type is a dynamic 
array then the [5] would end up throwing an ArrayIndexException if 
"_standard" wasn't in the map since inserting "_standard" would have set the 
value to be an empty array. If the value type was a static array then the 
[5] would work but my assumption is that "_standard" shouldn't be a key M.
Jul 14 2005
prev sibling parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Martin Desperate wrote:

 
 Ok, but what should I do? I don't like PHP at all, it very easy to write low
 quality code in it but very hard to write high quality.
 I did my last web application in C++ and it was no fun att all. 
 The best solution would be Java servkets and jsp, but I am no fan of Java and
 Java is also much slower than D.
 
 Using D 0.125 would be still better than to use other languages for know. (And
 for future then it might be wise for me to write a code reconverter or
 something.)
 But it would still be quite frustrating this change, also because I think the
 AA-s had some point as they where before. (Or better as I described: not
 creating an element just returning default value.)


Maybe it's a little too late now, but for future reference: try writing 
a wrapper class around AA's, and use that class, and call its method.
If D's implementation of AA changes, all you have to do is change few 
lines in your AA class.
Jul 12 2005
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:


 But it would still be quite frustrating this change, also because I think the
 AA-s had some point as they where before. (Or better as I described: not
 creating an element just returning default value.) 


 Maybe it's a little too late now, but for future reference: try writing 
 a wrapper class around AA's, and use that class, and call its method.
 If D's implementation of AA changes, all you have to do is change few 
 lines in your AA class.


Maybe we should do the same for strings too, then ? And arrays ? etc...
(i.e. add wrapper classes for the other D things that has problems too)

IMHO, More indirection is hardly the way to solve basic issues with the
D language, even if it is a nice way to abstract any advanced concepts.


If the arrays and tables are to be built-in to the language, then they
should be so smooth that you *don't* feel the need to do it yourself ?

Otherwise, it would be better off not burdering the language with those
concepts and implement them all in a library. Like in C++. Or in Java.

--anders
Jul 13 2005
parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
The problem here is that D is in beta phase, so things are almost 
guaranteed to change.

btw, in OOP we use wrappers for everything (hence the get() and set() 
methods all over the place).

Anders F Björklund wrote:

 Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 

 But it would still be quite frustrating this change, also because I 
 think the
 AA-s had some point as they where before. (Or better as I described: not
 creating an element just returning default value.) 



 Maybe it's a little too late now, but for future reference: try 
 writing a wrapper class around AA's, and use that class, and call its 
 method.
 If D's implementation of AA changes, all you have to do is change few 
 lines in your AA class.


 
 
 Maybe we should do the same for strings too, then ? And arrays ? etc...
 (i.e. add wrapper classes for the other D things that has problems too)
 
 IMHO, More indirection is hardly the way to solve basic issues with the
 D language, even if it is a nice way to abstract any advanced concepts.
 
 
 If the arrays and tables are to be built-in to the language, then they
 should be so smooth that you *don't* feel the need to do it yourself ?
 
 Otherwise, it would be better off not burdering the language with those
 concepts and implement them all in a library. Like in C++. Or in Java.
 
 --anders
Jul 13 2005
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:


 The problem here is that D is in beta phase, so things are almost 
 guaranteed to change.


Since even the specification is changing, it's alpha stage (at most)


 btw, in OOP we use wrappers for everything (hence the get() and set() 
 methods all over the place).


D makes quite a point of *not* needing wrappers for strings and arrays
and tables (AAs), very unlike how for instance C++ and Java does it... ?

Also, in D we have "properties" so there are no names "get" and "set";
As detailed on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/cpptod.html#properties

--anders
Jul 13 2005
parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:

 btw, in OOP we use wrappers for everything (hence the get() and set() 
 methods all over the place).


 
 
 D makes quite a point of *not* needing wrappers for strings and arrays
 and tables (AAs), very unlike how for instance C++ and Java does it... ?
 
 Also, in D we have "properties" so there are no names "get" and "set";
 As detailed on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/cpptod.html#properties
 
 --anders


Yeah, I wasn't talking about D, just the OOP paradigm.

Also btw, properties are just sugar for get and set, I personally don't 
see much point to using them.
Jul 13 2005
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:


 Also, in D we have "properties" so there are no names "get" and "set";
 As detailed on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/cpptod.html#properties




[...]

 Also btw, properties are just sugar for get and set, I personally don't 
 see much point to using them.


Actually I just meant the naming, as I'm normally using "overloading"
in C++ too - while I do use the JavaBeans standard (get/set) in Java.

I do think the "properties" are pretty sweet looking, though...

--anders
Jul 14 2005
prev sibling parent Martin <Martin_member pathlink.com> writes:
Actually it is not a bad idea.

struct STRING_CHAR
{
char []s[char []];
char []opIndex(char []a){
if(a not in s)return "";
else return s[a];
}
char [] opIndexAssign(char []what,char []a){
if(a not in s)s.addKey(a);
s[a]=what;
return what;
}
}

void test()
{   STRING_CHAR a;
STRING_CHAR b;
char []i;

i = a["yes"];   // same as i = a.opIndex(5,6,7);
a["yes"] = "no";                // same as a.opIndexAssign(7,i,3);
b["yes"]="yes";
b["yes"]=b["yes"]~"ok!";
printf(":%.*s %.*s \n",a["yes"],b["yes"]);
}

And could do templates so every type int [char[]], double [char[]] ... could be
simply implemented.

Thank you!



In article <db1bev$1fvt$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Hasan Aljudy says...

Martin Desperate wrote:

 
 Ok, but what should I do? I don't like PHP at all, it very easy to write low
 quality code in it but very hard to write high quality.
 I did my last web application in C++ and it was no fun att all. 
 The best solution would be Java servkets and jsp, but I am no fan of Java and
 Java is also much slower than D.
 
 Using D 0.125 would be still better than to use other languages for know. (And
 for future then it might be wise for me to write a code reconverter or
 something.)
 But it would still be quite frustrating this change, also because I think the
 AA-s had some point as they where before. (Or better as I described: not
 creating an element just returning default value.)


Maybe it's a little too late now, but for future reference: try writing 
a wrapper class around AA's, and use that class, and call its method.
If D's implementation of AA changes, all you have to do is change few 
lines in your AA class.
Jul 14 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Martin <Martin_member pathlink.com> writes:
Ok, maybe Iover reacted a bit before.
If it would be possible to use the old (or oldlike) behaviour somehow (for
example .get) then I could rewrite my code. But without it would be quite sad.
Or far better, with :strict and :loose, see the end of my mail please.

I can see that both uses of AA is very important. In some cases you use const
string values. Like 
char [][char []][]M  
what you can use to store the result of a an sql query (like M[5]["id"]). In
that case you really want to get an error if you misspelled.

In other cases is the opposite. For exaple I have the array char []POST[char []]
where I store the post values i get from user. It is very convinient just to
assume that "" means no value was sent . And if the behavior would be that it
only returns default value, not creats the element, then I could use the in
operator to check if the value was really sent. (Just rewturning default and not
creating anything is thread safe but still fairly close to previous behaviour)
In many cases in AA (atleast in my code) no element and default value mean the
same thing. And the difference between these is not important.

I think that maybe this time, just this time we could trust the programmer who
writes the code. 

I mean there could be 
int K[char[] : loose]
or 
int K[char[] : strict]

The strict could be default. 

I mean the programmer can't be plain stupid. For example he has to know if he
uses double of int variables. 
Ofcourse we could assume that he is and require that type double variables must
be written in capital letters. But we don't do so.

So he must be abble to tell the variable he uses is double or int, in that same
way he should be abble to tell if the AA he is using is strict or loose.

I think if D goes to be a very strict (too strict) language, it is not good!

What you think?
Jul 12 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Eugene Pelekhay <pelekhay gmail.com> writes:
Martin Desperate wrote:

Now throws an ArrayBoundsError if accessing an associative array with a key
that is not already in the array. Previously, the key would be added to the
array.




 
 
 All my work depends on previous behavior. My business logic is based on it.
 About 1 year of work, and this is not only hobby, but I was also hoping to get
 some commercial proffit from it.
 
 Why should it throw an error? Take PHP, it does not give you an error on that
 occation. I have implemented a scripting language (in my project) and
 assosiative arrays have been much imporantce the way they where. 
 
 In my mind the correct behaviour would be return the type default value if the
 element is not present (why waste memory in creating it) and not give an error.
 
 Or if you like there could be a keyword like 'loose' (opposite of strict) and
in
 that the AA-s would not throw an error but give type default value.
 
 Certanly the old (or old like) behavior is VERY important.
 
 By the way does someone have 0.0125 for me? I might be stuck with it for a very
 long time.
 


no comments :)
ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.125.zip

I hope this will helps
Jul 13 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
PHP throws a notice and generates an "Undefined index" or "Undefined 
offset" message if you try to read from an associative array where a key 
does not exist.  Many people ignore such errors, but they actually 
represent a significant speed/efficiency hit.

-[Unknown]



 Why should it throw an error? Take PHP, it does not give you an error on that
 occation. I have implemented a scripting language (in my project) and
 assosiative arrays have been much imporantce the way they where.
Jul 13 2005
prev sibling parent Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
Martin Desperate wrote:

Now throws an ArrayBoundsError if accessing an associative array with a key
that is not already in the array. Previously, the key would be added to the
array.




 
 
 All my work depends on previous behavior. My business logic is based on it.
 About 1 year of work, and this is not only hobby, but I was also hoping to get
 some commercial proffit from it.
 
 Why should it throw an error? Take PHP, it does not give you an error on that
 occation. I have implemented a scripting language (in my project) and
 assosiative arrays have been much imporantce the way they where. 
 
 In my mind the correct behaviour would be return the type default value if the
 element is not present (why waste memory in creating it) and not give an error.
 
 Or if you like there could be a keyword like 'loose' (opposite of strict) and
in
 that the AA-s would not throw an error but give type default value.
 
 Certanly the old (or old like) behavior is VERY important.
 
 By the way does someone have 0.0125 for me? I might be stuck with it for a very
 long time.
 
 


How did you find all the occurrences on your code?

Antonio Monteiro
Jul 28 2005