RFC: naming for FrontTransversal and Transversal ranges
sandford at jhu.edu
Fri May 1 10:48:09 PDT 2009
On Fri, 01 May 2009 06:45:20 -0400, Michel Fortin
<michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:
> On 2009-04-30 20:52:05 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>>>> (Last but not least, .NET has arrays and slices. D's slices that
>>>> actually have an array testis mesh real bad with .NET because in .NET
>>>> you can't have a disowned slice.)
>>> I've been following the blog. I was surprised that Cristian didn't
>>> just make all D arrays .NET ArraySegments and be done with it, but
>>> there's probably issues I don't know about. I'd like to hear more on
>>> what exactly the issue was.
>> We discussed at length. Without being an expert in .NET, I can't tell
>> what the problem is, but I do know that if there was a simpler
>> solution, Cristi would have probably found it.
> As I understand it, the issue is that the .NET API generally doesn't
> expect ArraySegments, but Array, so Cristi wants T to be an array, not
> an array segment, in order to make the API usable without having to
> duplicate ArraySegments into Arrays every time. I'm doubtful having a
> standard container type will help that much, as T (the slice) still
> won't be accepted by the .NET API and the programmer would simply have
> to always use the container.
> That the .NET framework wants to use containers everywhere instead of
> slices is not a reason for D to bend to .NET concept of arrays and
I agree. D shouldn't go borrowing bad design from other languages.
More information about the Digitalmars-d