• stunaep (4/4) Jul 29 2016 I have some java code I need to convert and at one point it uses
• Cauterite (8/12) Jul 29 2016 No, but with a template you could easily make your own:
• =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= (5/17) Jul 29 2016 I was going to suggest Algebraic because it allows arrays of mixed
• Cauterite (3/7) Jul 29 2016 It could work, but keep in mind Algebraic is a structure, not an
• =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= (6/15) Jul 29 2016 Also, I've later noticed that your Box was a class, so it would allow
• stunaep (7/19) Jul 29 2016 Thank you. This is just what I needed. I am curious though as to
• Cauterite (6/12) Jul 30 2016 auto s = new immutable(Boxed!string)(`foo`);

stunaep <admin pea2nuts.com> writes:

I have some java code I need to convert and at one point it uses 
an Object[] array to store various ints, longs, and strings. Java 
has built in Integer and Long classes that wrap the primitives in 
an object and strings are already objects.

Cauterite <cauterite gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 29 July 2016 at 20:13:34 UTC, stunaep wrote:
 I have some java code I need to convert and at one point it 
 uses an Object[] array to store various ints, longs, and 
 strings. Java has built in Integer and Long classes that wrap 
 the primitives in an object and strings are already objects.

No, but with a template you could easily make your own:

class Boxed(T) {
	T _v;
	alias _v this;
	this(in T v) immutable {_v = v;};
};

auto i = new Boxed!int(6);

=?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 07/29/2016 01:25 PM, Cauterite wrote:
 On Friday, 29 July 2016 at 20:13:34 UTC, stunaep wrote:
 I have some java code I need to convert and at one point it uses an
 Object[] array to store various ints, longs, and strings. Java has
 built in Integer and Long classes that wrap the primitives in an
 object and strings are already objects.

 No, but with a template you could easily make your own:

 class Boxed(T) {
     T _v;
     alias _v this;
     this(in T v) immutable {_v = v;};
 };

 auto i = new Boxed!int(6);

I was going to suggest Algebraic because it allows arrays of mixed 
primitive types (wrapped in Algebraic):

   https://dlang.org/phobos/std_variant.html#.Algebraic

Ali

Cauterite <cauterite gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 29 July 2016 at 20:26:47 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 I was going to suggest Algebraic because it allows arrays of 
 mixed primitive types (wrapped in Algebraic):

   https://dlang.org/phobos/std_variant.html#.Algebraic

 Ali

It could work, but keep in mind Algebraic is a structure, not an 
object.

=?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 07/29/2016 01:40 PM, Cauterite wrote:
 On Friday, 29 July 2016 at 20:26:47 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 I was going to suggest Algebraic because it allows arrays of mixed
 primitive types (wrapped in Algebraic):

   https://dlang.org/phobos/std_variant.html#.Algebraic

 Ali

 It could work, but keep in mind Algebraic is a structure, not an object.

Also, I've later noticed that your Box was a class, so it would allow 
"arrays of mixed primitive types" as well.

Yes, Algebraic is not a struct but Java not having structs doesn't mean 
that the original code really needed classes either. :)

Ali

stunaep <admin pea2nuts.com> writes:

On Friday, 29 July 2016 at 20:25:16 UTC, Cauterite wrote:
 On Friday, 29 July 2016 at 20:13:34 UTC, stunaep wrote:
 I have some java code I need to convert and at one point it 
 uses an Object[] array to store various ints, longs, and 
 strings. Java has built in Integer and Long classes that wrap 
 the primitives in an object and strings are already objects.

 No, but with a template you could easily make your own:

 class Boxed(T) {
 	T _v;
 	alias _v this;
 	this(in T v) immutable {_v = v;};
 };

 auto i = new Boxed!int(6);

Thank you. This is just what I needed. I am curious though as to 
why this doesn't work with strings. It would work if I removed 
immutable from the Boxed constructor but I thought strings were 
immutable. I get a compiler error 'not callable using a mutable 
object'. Even marking a string with the immutable keyword has the 
same result.

Cauterite <cauterite gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 30 July 2016 at 04:12:45 UTC, stunaep wrote:

 Thank you. This is just what I needed. I am curious though as 
 to why this doesn't work with strings. It would work if I 
 removed immutable from the Boxed constructor but I thought 
 strings were immutable. I get a compiler error 'not callable 
 using a mutable object'. Even marking a string with the 
 immutable keyword has the same result.

auto s = new immutable(Boxed!string)(`foo`);

what it's saying is that the box itself needs to be immutable.
Honestly I don't know why it was even possible to make a mutable 
box in the first place, when the only constructor is marked 
`immutable`.