Associative Arrays max length? 32bit/64bit

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On Sat, 24 May 2014 21:39:14 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d  
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 06:05:49PM -0700, Steven Schveighoffer via  
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2014 02:54:01 -0700, FG <home at fgda.pl> wrote:
> [...]
>> >Really? Then what does TypeInfo.compare(void*, void*) use? For
>> >example here:
>> >
>> >     auto key_hash = keyti.getHash(pkey); Entry *e;
>> >     /* ... */
>> >     if (key_hash == e.hash) {
>> >         auto c = keyti.compare(pkey, e + 1);
>> >         if (c == 0) goto Lret;
>> >     }
>>
>> You know what, you are right. I assumed it used keyti.equals. This is
>> a bug imo, since opCmp will be used, and opEquals will be ignored.
>> Just checking for opCmp == 0 is identical to opEquals, except some
>> types can define opEquals but not opCmp.
>>
>> But I don't know if it will get fixed. The whole AA runtime has to be
>> redone at some point.
> [...]
>
> This has been argued over in a druntime pull before. I'm 100% for
> changing the above line (and all other instances of it) to use
> keyti.equals() instead. But that was shot down due to potential breakage
> of existing code. :-( :-( Nevermind the fact that it probably breaks a
> lot more *new* code than it ever will break old code... :-(

Any object/struct that defines opCmp but not opEquals is broken, and  
deserves to not work with AAs.

It's a trivial change to add opEquals when opCmp is defined. This change  
should happen should happen. What pull request is it?

> It's been far too long that AA's have been broken in druntime. Somebody
> should just take the aaA.d out in the back and shoot it, and replace it
> with a better implementation. I think users will be far happier with
> that.

I don't know that the current implementation is broken, just horrible. I'd  
rather focus on getting a full library type able to be up-to-par with the  
builtin type, and then switch the implementation over in the compiler.  
IIRC, the compiler does some magic (i.e. ignoring certain attribute  
requirements) that can't be done for a library type.

-Steve