• XavierAP (7/7) Apr 22 2017 I can do:
• kinke (4/11) Apr 22 2017 int[3][4] arr = void;
• XavierAP (4/7) Apr 23 2017 Thanks... I think I prefer to write two loops though :p I wish D
• =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= (8/15) Apr 23 2017 It took me a while to convince myself that there is no bug here. The
• XavierAP (6/9) Apr 23 2017 Ha, you're right, I hadn't realized.
• =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= (12/16) Apr 25 2017 I think it's still consistent because the element type is not int in the...
• XavierAP (18/23) Apr 25 2017 It is consistent, I just miss the possibility to more easily

XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:

I can do:

int[3] arr = void;
arr[] = 1;

But apparently I can't do:

int[3][4] arr = void;
arr[][] = 1;

What is the best way? What am I missing?

kinke <noone nowhere.com> writes:

On Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 20:51:46 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
 I can do:

 int[3] arr = void;
 arr[] = 1;

 But apparently I can't do:

 int[3][4] arr = void;
 arr[][] = 1;

 What is the best way? What am I missing?

int[3][4] arr = void;
(cast(int[]) arr)[] = 1;
assert(arr[3][2] == 1);

XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:

On Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 22:25:58 UTC, kinke wrote:
 int[3][4] arr = void;
 (cast(int[]) arr)[] = 1;
 assert(arr[3][2] == 1);

Thanks... I think I prefer to write two loops though :p I wish D 

you can do in D for custom types)

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

On 04/22/2017 01:51 PM, XavierAP wrote:
 I can do:

 int[3] arr = void;
 arr[] = 1;

 But apparently I can't do:

 int[3][4] arr = void;
 arr[][] = 1;

 What is the best way? What am I missing?

It took me a while to convince myself that there is no bug here. The 
problem, as is obvious to others, ;) a whole slice of a whole slice is 
still the same slice. So it's not possible to go deeper into the element 
slices. Here is a proof with a simple array:

     int[] a;
     static assert(is(typeof(a[]) == typeof(a[][][][])));

Ali

XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:

On Sunday, 23 April 2017 at 09:06:35 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 It took me a while to convince myself that there is no bug 
 here. The problem, as is obvious to others, ;) a whole slice of 
 a whole slice is still the same slice.

Ha, you're right, I hadn't realized.

But I still have a problem. For both multi-dimensional and 
uni-dimensional arrays a[] and a[][] are the same. And yet, a[] 
has different type in both cases and a[]=1 compiles for 
uni-dimensional but not for multi-dimensional.

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

On 04/23/2017 12:04 PM, XavierAP wrote:

 For both multi-dimensional and
 uni-dimensional arrays a[] and a[][] are the same. And yet, a[] has
 different type in both cases and a[]=1 compiles for uni-dimensional but
 not for multi-dimensional.

I think it's still consistent because the element type is not int in the 
case of multi-dimensional arrays. The following makes sense to me but I 
haven't profiled it. Otherwise, kinke's solution is perfectly fine in a 
system programming language. ;)

     int[3] a;
     a[] = 1;
     a[][] = 1;  // Same effect

     int[3][4] b;
     b[] = [1, 1, 1];
     b[][] = [1, 1, 1];  // Same effect

Ali

XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:

On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 at 20:46:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 I think it's still consistent because the element type is not 
 int in the case of multi-dimensional arrays.
 [...]
     int[3][4] b;
     b[] = [1, 1, 1];

It is consistent, I just miss the possibility to more easily 
initialize multi-dimensional arrays uniformly in the same way as 
uni-dimensional ones.

I do not mean it would be good to change the current behavior. I 
think the best solution would be for D to implement built-in 
truly multi-dimensional arrays like T[,] as well as the existing 

could maybe even be lowered into jagged arrays (together with 
their initializations and slicings).

But again most people probably don't miss T[,] built-in arrays, 
specially since we can implement such [,] indexing for custom 
types. So there's not a strong use case.

But actually where I'm using multi-dimensional built-in arrays 
right now is in the private storage of a custom multi-dimensional 
type. Then I have the choice of either use them and live with 
this, but forward indexing transparently; or use uni-dimensional 
as private storage and map from 2d to linear during indexing...