• Claydoo (18/18) May 07 2004 Hi, I have a few simple questions about D.
• Vathix (11/29) May 07 2004 equals 2?
• Unknown W. Brackets (5/9) May 07 2004 I read it as wondering why the order is changed... I have no answer for
• Mike Wynn (14/38) May 07 2004 consider the C

Claydoo <Claydoo_member pathlink.com> writes:

Hi, I have a few simple questions about D.

First off, why is it that if i run 'mydprogram one_arg', args.length equals 2?
Something i'm missing? seems like just one argument was passed. Does the name as
the program count as an argument? 

Second off, in C arrays are declared in the order of 

short bob[numarrays:2][num_vars_per_array:3] =
{
{1,2,3},
{1,2,3}
};

why does D take such a different approach with

short [num_vars_per_array:3][numarrays:2] =
[
[1,2,3],
[1,2,3]
];

Is there something really useful i'm missing here? It seems like it just makes
it harder to convert C++ code to D, and as a c/c++ guy it is just confusing. 

"Vathix" <vathixSpamFix dprogramming.com> writes:

"Claydoo" <Claydoo_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c7gp9d$1ch8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi, I have a few simple questions about D.

 First off, why is it that if i run 'mydprogram one_arg', args.length

equals 2?
 Something i'm missing? seems like just one argument was passed. Does the

name as
 the program count as an argument?

That's correct, args[0] is the program name used.


 Second off, in C arrays are declared in the order of

 short bob[numarrays:2][num_vars_per_array:3] =
 {
 {1,2,3},
 {1,2,3}
 };

 why does D take such a different approach with

 short [num_vars_per_array:3][numarrays:2] =
 [
 [1,2,3],
 [1,2,3]
 ];

 Is there something really useful i'm missing here? It seems like it just

makes
 it harder to convert C++ code to D, and as a c/c++ guy it is just

confusing.

D's way makes it easier to parse. Encounter [], it's an array; {}, it's a
struct.


--
Christopher E. Miller

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown at.simplemachines.dot.org> writes:

Vathix wrote:

short bob[numarrays:2][num_vars_per_array:3] =


short [num_vars_per_array:3][numarrays:2] =


(should be short [num_vars_per_array:3][numarrays:2] *bob* =, no?)

 D's way makes it easier to parse. Encounter [], it's an array; {}, it's a
 struct.

I read it as wondering why the order is changed... I have no answer for 
that, however, but I assume there's likely a reason.

-[Unknown]

Mike Wynn <one_mad_alien hotmail.com> writes:

On Fri, 7 May 2004 15:56:40 -0400, "Vathix"
<vathixSpamFix dprogramming.com> wrote:

"Claydoo" <Claydoo_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c7gp9d$1ch8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi, I have a few simple questions about D.

 Second off, in C arrays are declared in the order of

 short bob[numarrays:2][num_vars_per_array:3] =
 {
 {1,2,3},
 {1,2,3}
 };

 why does D take such a different approach with

 short [num_vars_per_array:3][numarrays:2] =
 [
 [1,2,3],
 [1,2,3]
 ];

 Is there something really useful i'm missing here? It seems like it just

makes
 it harder to convert C++ code to D, and as a c/c++ guy it is just

confusing.

consider the C
typedef int IA[4]
typedef IA myData[3]

IA is int[4]
myData is (int[4])[3]
or int myData[3][4] <- more confusing if its more complex as in :
 int[][char[]][] is array of ( assoc(key=char[], value=int[])  )
something[] where something is val[key] with val=int[], key=char[]
simple to mix arrays of arrays of hashes od arrays of hashes of ......

may seem odd if you come from a C background, but once you use it
you'll never look back.

Mike.