• Yuxuan Shui (3/3) Apr 01 2016 Why?
• =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= (4/7) Apr 01 2016 Sounds easy to implement. Please file an enhancement request:
• Ozan (2/5) Apr 02 2016 aa.keys.length
• Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn (10/16) Apr 02 2016 That allocates an array. Doing that would be like doing
• John Colvin (3/23) Apr 03 2016 Maybe
• Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn (3/29) Apr 03 2016 Yeah, that's a clever workaround.
• Yuxuan Shui (2/13) Apr 03 2016 So should we not add length to byKey?
• Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn (5/20) Apr 04 2016 I don't see any reason for the result of byKey to not have length. It's ...
• John Colvin (3/18) Apr 04 2016 Yes. But until that happens, my workaround allows you to carry on

Yuxuan Shui <yshuiv7 gmail.com> writes:

Why?

This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that 
requires hasLength.

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

On 04/01/2016 01:50 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
 Why?

 This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that requires
 hasLength.

Sounds easy to implement. Please file an enhancement request:

   https://issues.dlang.org/

Ali

Ozan <ozan.sueel gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 1 April 2016 at 20:50:32 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
 Why?

 This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that 
 requires hasLength.

aa.keys.length

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

On Saturday, April 02, 2016 15:38:30 Ozan via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Friday, 1 April 2016 at 20:50:32 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
 Why?

 This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that
 requires hasLength.

 aa.keys.length

That allocates an array. Doing that would be like doing
aa.byKeys().array().length. And associate arrays already have length. You
can do

auto len = aa.length;

The problem is when you want to operate on a range, and the function that
you want to pass it to wants length on the range. If byKeys returned a range
with length, then that would work, but since it doesn't, it doesn't. Having
other ways to get the length doesn't help.

- Jonathan M Davis

John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Saturday, April 02, 2016 15:38:30 Ozan via 
 Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Friday, 1 April 2016 at 20:50:32 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
 Why?

 This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that 
 requires hasLength.

 aa.keys.length

 That allocates an array. Doing that would be like doing
 aa.byKeys().array().length. And associate arrays already have 
 length. You
 can do

 auto len = aa.length;

 The problem is when you want to operate on a range, and the 
 function that you want to pass it to wants length on the range. 
 If byKeys returned a range with length, then that would work, 
 but since it doesn't, it doesn't. Having other ways to get the 
 length doesn't help.

 - Jonathan M Davis

Maybe

aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

On Sunday, April 03, 2016 23:46:10 John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Saturday, April 02, 2016 15:38:30 Ozan via

 Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Friday, 1 April 2016 at 20:50:32 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
 Why?

 This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that
 requires hasLength.

 aa.keys.length

 That allocates an array. Doing that would be like doing
 aa.byKeys().array().length. And associate arrays already have
 length. You
 can do

 auto len = aa.length;

 The problem is when you want to operate on a range, and the
 function that you want to pass it to wants length on the range.
 If byKeys returned a range with length, then that would work,
 but since it doesn't, it doesn't. Having other ways to get the
 length doesn't help.

 Maybe

 aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)

Yeah, that's a clever workaround.

- Jonathan M Davis

Yuxuan Shui <yshuiv7 gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 4 April 2016 at 00:50:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Sunday, April 03, 2016 23:46:10 John Colvin via 
 Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:
 [...]

 Maybe

 aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)

 Yeah, that's a clever workaround.

 - Jonathan M Davis

So should we not add length to byKey?

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

On Monday, April 04, 2016 02:32:56 Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Monday, 4 April 2016 at 00:50:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Sunday, April 03, 2016 23:46:10 John Colvin via

 Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis

 wrote:
 [...]

 Maybe

 aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)

 Yeah, that's a clever workaround.

 So should we not add length to byKey?

I don't see any reason for the result of byKey to not have length. It's just
that given that it doesn't currently have length, John's suggestion provides
a way to turn it into a range with length.

- Jonathan M Davis

John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 4 April 2016 at 02:32:56 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
 On Monday, 4 April 2016 at 00:50:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Sunday, April 03, 2016 23:46:10 John Colvin via 
 Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:
 [...]

 Maybe

 aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)

 Yeah, that's a clever workaround.

 - Jonathan M Davis

 So should we not add length to byKey?

Yes. But until that happens, my workaround allows you to carry on 
getting work done :)