www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - opSliceAssign

reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Because assigning to array slices is possible, why dont D has an 
opSliceAssign?

-manfred
Aug 18 2005
next sibling parent reply Chris Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

 Because assigning to array slices is possible, why dont D has an 
 opSliceAssign?
 
 -manfred


Its a good question, and probably has something to do with determining the
signature of 
the function.  Now that D has its "typesafe variadic arguments" I figure an
opSliceAssign 
might look like:












-- Chris Sauls
Aug 18 2005
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Chris Sauls wrote:
<snip>

 Its a good question, and probably has something to do with determining 
 the signature of the function.  Now that D has its "typesafe variadic 
 arguments" I figure an opSliceAssign might look like:
 




 values...) {


Why the ...?  And why return a size_t?  And why not have the order match 
opIndexAssign?

     int[] opSliceAssign(int[] values, size_t begin, size_t end) { ... }

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K- w++  O? M V? PS- PE- Y? 
PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Aug 23 2005
parent Chris Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Chris Sauls wrote:
 <snip>
 

 Its a good question, and probably has something to do with determining 
 the signature of the function.  Now that D has its "typesafe variadic 
 arguments" I figure an opSliceAssign might look like:





 values...) {


 
 
 Why the ...?


I thought it was clever at the time... Now that I think about it, I guess it is
kind of 
pointless.  A formal array would work fine.


 And why return a size_t?


I think I was envisioning it returning a length or something... honestly I
forget what I 
was on to.


 And why not have the order match 
 opIndexAssign?


That was just because of the variadic at the end.  Once that's gone, there's no
reason, so 
yes it should match, just as you presented below.


 
     int[] opSliceAssign(int[] values, size_t begin, size_t end) { ... }
 


-- Chris Sauls
Aug 23 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:de1lv7$1uln$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Because assigning to array slices is possible, why dont D has an
 opSliceAssign?


I've asked this same question many times myself.
Aug 18 2005
parent Shammah Chancellor <Shammah_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <de25l3$2n0u$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jarrett Billingsley says...

"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:de1lv7$1uln$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Because assigning to array slices is possible, why dont D has an
 opSliceAssign?


I've asked this same question many times myself. 


I think the rationale for this is:

A slice is supposed to return another instance of the object with a subrange.
Because of the order of 
operation, you can then assign to it, and opAssign would then take over IE:
foo[1..2] = 10 would be rewritten as:  foo.opSlice(1,2).opAssign(10)

However, this is not really a good thing.  Since if that's how normal slices
worked, using opslice to 
imply a copy on normal arrays wouldn't work.  Normally when a slice operator is
used with an array as 
an lvalue, it causes an array copy.  This is functionally objects cannot obtain
currently.


I vote for an opSliceAssign as well! :)
Aug 19 2005