• Vladimir Panteleev (17/17) Jan 06 2007 I've been wondering whether D supported sets, or something similar. What...
• Jeff M (6/24) Jan 06 2007 It would be nice if a "void[int]" array was usable. Associative arrays
• Chris Nicholson-Sauls (5/33) Jan 06 2007 Actually I'm pretty sure create-on-access was removed several releases b...
• Carlos Santander (7/43) Jan 07 2007 That's true.
• Georg Wrede (2/49) Jan 07 2007 Or defined as a declaration of a set.
• Chris Nicholson-Sauls (4/56) Jan 07 2007 That would suit me just fine. It would need a usable syntax though... p...
• Stewart Gordon (7/12) Jan 07 2007

"Vladimir Panteleev" <tehcybershadow gmail.com> writes:

I've been wondering whether D supported sets, or something similar. What I  
have in mind isn't unlike associative arrays, but without values: an  
unordered list with quick look-up and simple addition/removal of elements,  
yet still capable of enumeration, etc.

I followed my intuition and tried to declare an associative array with a  
"void" value type:

void[int] foo;

To my surprise, it compiled. And even the "in" operation and the .keys and  
.values properties worked fine (or as fine as they can work with an empty  
associative array).

Of course, the question comes: how would one add keys to such a construct?  
The practical answer is obvious: use a real "dummy" data type (bit, for  
example) as the value type, but I find it a shame that declaring such  
constructs is allowed - yet you can't really use them.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Fix obvious typo in e-mail address to reply.

Jeff M <jeff jeffrules.com> writes:

On 2007-01-06 16:05:06 -0800, "Vladimir Panteleev" 
<tehcybershadow gmail.com> said:

 I've been wondering whether D supported sets, or something similar. 
 What I  have in mind isn't unlike associative arrays, but without 
 values: an  unordered list with quick look-up and simple 
 addition/removal of elements,  yet still capable of enumeration, etc.
 
 I followed my intuition and tried to declare an associative array with 
 a  "void" value type:
 
 void[int] foo;
 
 To my surprise, it compiled. And even the "in" operation and the .keys 
 and  .values properties worked fine (or as fine as they can work with 
 an empty  associative array).
 
 Of course, the question comes: how would one add keys to such a 
 construct?  The practical answer is obvious: use a real "dummy" data 
 type (bit, for  example) as the value type, but I find it a shame that 
 declaring such  constructs is allowed - yet you can't really use them.

It would be nice if a "void[int]" array was usable. Associative arrays 
are create-on-access, so "foo[5];" should be a legal for creating an 
index in the array, but this throws an error.

-- Jeff

Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:

Jeff M wrote:
 On 2007-01-06 16:05:06 -0800, "Vladimir Panteleev" 
 <tehcybershadow gmail.com> said:
 
 I've been wondering whether D supported sets, or something similar. 
 What I  have in mind isn't unlike associative arrays, but without 
 values: an  unordered list with quick look-up and simple 
 addition/removal of elements,  yet still capable of enumeration, etc.

 I followed my intuition and tried to declare an associative array with 
 a  "void" value type:

 void[int] foo;

 To my surprise, it compiled. And even the "in" operation and the .keys 
 and  .values properties worked fine (or as fine as they can work with 
 an empty  associative array).

 Of course, the question comes: how would one add keys to such a 
 construct?  The practical answer is obvious: use a real "dummy" data 
 type (bit, for  example) as the value type, but I find it a shame that 
 declaring such  constructs is allowed - yet you can't really use them.

 
 It would be nice if a "void[int]" array was usable. Associative arrays 
 are create-on-access, so "foo[5];" should be a legal for creating an 
 index in the array, but this throws an error.
 
 -- Jeff
 

Actually I'm pretty sure create-on-access was removed several releases back? 
And I also 
thought the compiler no longer allowed a void value type for associative
arrays, but I 
guess I was wrong on that one.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:

Chris Nicholson-Sauls escribió:
 Jeff M wrote:
 On 2007-01-06 16:05:06 -0800, "Vladimir Panteleev" 
 <tehcybershadow gmail.com> said:

 I've been wondering whether D supported sets, or something similar. 
 What I  have in mind isn't unlike associative arrays, but without 
 values: an  unordered list with quick look-up and simple 
 addition/removal of elements,  yet still capable of enumeration, etc.

 I followed my intuition and tried to declare an associative array 
 with a  "void" value type:

 void[int] foo;

 To my surprise, it compiled. And even the "in" operation and the 
 .keys and  .values properties worked fine (or as fine as they can 
 work with an empty  associative array).

 Of course, the question comes: how would one add keys to such a 
 construct?  The practical answer is obvious: use a real "dummy" data 
 type (bit, for  example) as the value type, but I find it a shame 
 that declaring such  constructs is allowed - yet you can't really use 
 them.

 It would be nice if a "void[int]" array was usable. Associative arrays 
 are create-on-access, so "foo[5];" should be a legal for creating an 
 index in the array, but this throws an error.

 -- Jeff

 
 Actually I'm pretty sure create-on-access was removed several releases 
 back?  And I also thought the compiler no longer allowed a void value 
 type for associative arrays, but I guess I was wrong on that one.
 
 -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

That's true.
Back then, I used "void[T]" as a set, but since the change, I use "T[T]".
BTW, since "void[T]" is mostly useless (for the reasons stated above), would it 
be reasonable for the compiler to flag such a declaration as an error?

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:

Carlos Santander wrote:
 Chris Nicholson-Sauls escribió:
 
 Jeff M wrote:

 On 2007-01-06 16:05:06 -0800, "Vladimir Panteleev" 
 <tehcybershadow gmail.com> said:

 I've been wondering whether D supported sets, or something similar. 
 What I  have in mind isn't unlike associative arrays, but without 
 values: an  unordered list with quick look-up and simple 
 addition/removal of elements,  yet still capable of enumeration, etc.

 I followed my intuition and tried to declare an associative array 
 with a  "void" value type:

 void[int] foo;

 To my surprise, it compiled. And even the "in" operation and the 
 .keys and  .values properties worked fine (or as fine as they can 
 work with an empty  associative array).

 Of course, the question comes: how would one add keys to such a 
 construct?  The practical answer is obvious: use a real "dummy" data 
 type (bit, for  example) as the value type, but I find it a shame 
 that declaring such  constructs is allowed - yet you can't really 
 use them.


 It would be nice if a "void[int]" array was usable. Associative 
 arrays are create-on-access, so "foo[5];" should be a legal for 
 creating an index in the array, but this throws an error.

 -- Jeff

 Actually I'm pretty sure create-on-access was removed several releases 
 back?  And I also thought the compiler no longer allowed a void value 
 type for associative arrays, but I guess I was wrong on that one.

 -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

 
 
 That's true.
 Back then, I used "void[T]" as a set, but since the change, I use "T[T]".
 BTW, since "void[T]" is mostly useless (for the reasons stated above), 
 would it be reasonable for the compiler to flag such a declaration as an 
 error?

Or defined as a declaration of a set.

Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:

Georg Wrede wrote:
 Carlos Santander wrote:
 Chris Nicholson-Sauls escribió:

 Jeff M wrote:

 On 2007-01-06 16:05:06 -0800, "Vladimir Panteleev" 
 <tehcybershadow gmail.com> said:

 I've been wondering whether D supported sets, or something similar. 
 What I  have in mind isn't unlike associative arrays, but without 
 values: an  unordered list with quick look-up and simple 
 addition/removal of elements,  yet still capable of enumeration, etc.

 I followed my intuition and tried to declare an associative array 
 with a  "void" value type:

 void[int] foo;

 To my surprise, it compiled. And even the "in" operation and the 
 .keys and  .values properties worked fine (or as fine as they can 
 work with an empty  associative array).

 Of course, the question comes: how would one add keys to such a 
 construct?  The practical answer is obvious: use a real "dummy" 
 data type (bit, for  example) as the value type, but I find it a 
 shame that declaring such  constructs is allowed - yet you can't 
 really use them.


 It would be nice if a "void[int]" array was usable. Associative 
 arrays are create-on-access, so "foo[5];" should be a legal for 
 creating an index in the array, but this throws an error.

 -- Jeff

 Actually I'm pretty sure create-on-access was removed several 
 releases back?  And I also thought the compiler no longer allowed a 
 void value type for associative arrays, but I guess I was wrong on 
 that one.

 -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls


 That's true.
 Back then, I used "void[T]" as a set, but since the change, I use "T[T]".
 BTW, since "void[T]" is mostly useless (for the reasons stated above), 
 would it be reasonable for the compiler to flag such a declaration as 
 an error?

 
 Or defined as a declaration of a set.
 

That would suit me just fine.  It would need a usable syntax though... perhaps
as simple 
as adding a .add property counter to the existing .remove?

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
<snip>
 void[int] foo;

<snip>
 Of course, the question comes: how would one add keys to such a 
 construct? The practical answer is obvious: use a real "dummy" data type 
 (bit, for example) as the value type, but I find it a shame that 
 declaring such constructs is allowed - yet you can't really use them.

Strange indeed.  Sounds like a bug.

But do have a look at hashset in my utility library:

http://pr.stewartsplace.org.uk/d/sutil/

Stewart.