[:] as empty associative array literal, plus warning for null
Steven Schveighoffer
schveiguy at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 4 04:50:54 PDT 2013
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 05:25:30 -0400, Regan Heath <regan at netmail.co.nz>
wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:10:40 +0100, bearophile
> <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote:
>> Telling apart the literal for an empty array from the literal of a
>> empty but not null array is a bad idea that muds the language. And
>> thankfully this currently fails:
>>
>> void main() {
>> int[] emptyArray = [];
>> assert(emptyArray !is null);
>> }
>
> As this comes up often you're probably aware that there are people (like
> myself) who find the distinction between a null (non-existant) array and
> an empty array useful.
Nobody questions that. The biggest problem is making if(arr) mean
if(arr.ptr) instead of if(arr.length)
What [] returns should not be an allocation. And returning null is a
reasonable implementation of that.
-Steve
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list