Multi dimensional array question.

[Heywood Floyd]

Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:

> 
> But then arrays would be different from all other types!  If you have an 
> array of 3 Ts, that is written T[3], regardless of what T is.  Now 
> consider these two cases:
> 
>    A. T is an int.  Then T[3] becomes int[3].
> 
>    B. T is an int[string].  Then T[3] becomes int[string][3].
> 
> In case A, the first element of the array is accessed like this:
> 
>    int[3] a;
>    int firstA = a[0];
> 
> Since a is an array of int, firstA is of course an int.
> 
> But then, since b is an array of int[string], we have
> 
>    int[string][3] b;
>    int[string] firstB = b[0];
> 
> If we again want to access element "foo" of the associative array which 
> is firstB, we write firstB["foo"].  And so we have the following three 
> ways to get to that element, which *must* be equivalent because that's 
> how the language is defined:
> 
>    // Using firstB as an intermediate step
>    int[string] firstB = b[0];
>    int x = firstB["foo"];
> 
>    // Drop the intermediate variable firstB
>    int x = (b[0])["foo"];
> 
>    // Drop the redundant parentheses
>    int x = b[0]["foo"];
> 
> So you see, it can't be any other way than the way it is. :)
> 
> -Lars

Thank you for the elaborate answer!

When you put it like that, it does make sense. But I'm sorry. I refuse. The reason I refuse is those examples are void of any higher semantic meaning. Once we add a semantic meaning, it simply becomes backwards:

int[MAX_WIDTH][MAX_HEIGHT] map2d;
map2d[x][y] = 9; // Wrong!

At least in my head, this is cognitive dissonance. To me, the language acts as if it's low-level semantics outweighs my high-level semantics and I should correct my thinking for that. I refuse! Seems to me it could just as well work as:

int[string][3] b;
int[3] firstB = b["foo"];
int i = firstB[0];
int j = (b["foo"])[0];
int k = b["foo"][0];

But I feel like I'm the only one feeling this, so I'll just let it go and hope my dear C-style arrays stay in :)

BR
/HF

PS. Never thought I'd find a reason to love C.. DS.