opDollar

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Tomas Lindquist Olsen" wrote
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:mailman.89.1220922329.19733.digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com...
>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>>>> 4) We need some way of supporting dollar notation in user containers. 
>>>>> The
>>>>> hack of using __dollar is bad (although it works).
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>> It doesn't work for multiple dimensions. There should be an 
>>>> opDollar(uint
>>>> dim) that gives the library information on which argument count it 
>>>> occured
>>>> in. Consider:
>> <snip>
>>
>> opDollar is the wrong choice of name.  The op* methods are - as a rule - 
>> named after the semantic function of the operator, rather than what the 
>> operator looks like.  For example, opMul not opAsterisk, opIndex not 
>> opSquareBrackets.  Consequently, opStar is already inconsistently named; 
>> I think one such is enough.  As for what the function to overload $ 
>> should be called ... how about opEnd?
>>
>> Where did this conversation begin?  I can't seem to find any messages up 
>> the thread from the one I'm replying to now.
>>
>> Stewart.
>>
>
> Since $ is used as a shortcut for for array.length, I'd say opLength is a 
> better choice. Maybe I missed some of the discussion ...

I'd agree with opEnd.  opLength is only a valid construct for arrays, where 
the slice indexes are based on how far into the container the element is.

For example, if you wanted to 'slice' an AA, you would use 2 keys for the 
slice 'indexes', what if the keys are strings?

-Steve