array length vs $

[Robert Fraser]

Agreed. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen that feature used in any d code I've seen, and it certainly wouldn't be hard to fix any errors it raised, unless someone was actually relying on the shadowing aspect.

So, you got my vote.

Frank Benoit Wrote:

> Given this array:
> 	int[] bar = new int[4];
> 
> This is equivalent:
> 	bar[ 1 .. length ] <->  bar[ 1 .. $ ]
> 	bar[ length -1 ]   <->  bar[ $-1 ]
> 
> 'length' is implicitely declared within [ ].
> 
> Since long time i think 'length' should be removed, because it can 
> conflict with a local 'length' variable. We have the special symbol $, 
> which does not have this problem.
> 
> I think this matters in case of porting code. 'length' is an often used 
> variable name, especially in code portions acting with arrays. When 
> porting such stuff, all 'length' variables need to be renamed.
> 
> But i see no benefit from this 'length'. It seems surprising for me. I 
> always use $. When i see foreign code using 'length', it looks wrong to me.
> 
> Implicit 'length' does implicitely disallow the name 'length' for all 
> other integer like variables that are potentially used in array index 
> calculations. In fact, i don't use the name 'length' for any variable in 
> D because of this.
> 
> I wish, the implicit 'length' would be deprecated and then removed from D.
> 
> Summay:
>   - One thing/rule more to keep in mind
>   - No benefit
>   - It exists because it existed before we had $
>   - Can cause problems
>   - Restricts the use of the name 'length' for other variables.
> 
> Removing 'length' would not break code in unexpected ways. It would 
> yield compile errors in every case and can be fixed by simple replacing 
> 'length' to '$'.