in operator generalization

[Ivan Senji]

BCS wrote:
> Les Baker wrote:
>> Looking through old NG posts I found this one by Ben Hinkle last year
>> about extending the "in" operator to support static/dynamic arrays.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/25164
>>
>> Was this ever totally dismissed?  It just seemed to fall off the
>> radar.  I'm liking the concept though; I don't know how many times
>> I've written loops in quickie utility programs just to hunt for a item
>> and return it.  I would also additionally suggest (if it hasn't
>> already been) that "in" be overloadable so that if D supports other
>> data structures in the standard library that they can use that syntax
>> as well.
>>
>> The only disadvantage I can think of is that when a developer sees
>> "in", he/she can't assume it's a constant time operation anymore.  I
>> think the increase in utility outweights that though.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Les Baker
> 
> Actually this would be backwards, "in" determines if the given value is
> a key for the AA. Using it to examine the contents would be something
> different than it's current meaning, but this might not be a bad idea.

I didn't understand before nor do I understand why this was always an
argument against 'in' for arrays?

float[MyObject] array; -> stores MyObjects
MyObject[] 	array; -> stores MyObjects

AA are different from normal arrays. In AA's the index is the thing you
are storing, and it makes sense to search for it.