Proposal: Make [][x] and [][a..b] illegal (reserve for multidimensional

[Bruce Adams]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:50:28 -0000, Dan <murpsoft at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Bill Baxter Wrote:
>
>> Don Clugston wrote:>
>> Another proposal would be to allow [..] as your slice an move on syntax,
>> and keep the current meaning of [].
>
> Jeepers, we already have $ as a shorthand for length.  Is 0..$ really  
> too long?  Even an 11 dimensional array is legible with that.  11  
> dimensions is barely comprehensible to even the best mind.  Most folk  
> can't even perceive 4.
>
> x[0..$][0..$][0..$][0..$][0..$][0..$][0..$][0..$][0..$][0..$][0..$];
>
>> Also one thing not clear to me with your proposal is whether
>> f[1..2][2..3][3..4] generates 3 opSlice calls or just 1 when applied to
>> a user class.  I can see reasons for wanting both.  If you have a fixed
>> dimension class that only allows integer slicing, then probably 1
>> opSlice call with all 3 slices is the most useful.  If you have
>> something representing a N-dimensional thing where N is runtime, and you
>> allow for slicing with objects (like other N-dimsional arrays), then 3
>> separate chained calls like f.opSlice(a).opSlice(b).opSlice(c) might be
>> more useful to cut down on all the combinatorial explosion of possible
>> combos of opSlice arguments.
>>
>> --bb
>
>
> Yeah, I tend to agree with using 3 separate opSlice calls.  But... we  
> don't even need to create an opSlice method, do we?  Arrays already work  
> wonderfully?  Doesn't:
>
> [code]
> float[42][12][14] x;
> float[42][2][2] y;
>
> y = x[0..$][1..2][3..4];
> [/code]
> That works, right?  and you can loop over it just like this?
> [code]
> for(int i = 0; i < x.length; i++)
> {
>    for(int j = 0; j < x[i].length; j++)
>    {
>    }
> }
> [/code]
>
> I don't see the problem?

Or even:

foreach(xslice, x[0..$])
{
   foreach(yslice, xslice[0..$])
   {
     foreach(element, yslice[0..$])
     {
     }
   }
}

Question is foreach clever enough to allow:

foreach(element, x[0..$][0..$][0..$])
{
}

and make it efficient?
and what about:

foreach(x,y,z,element, x[0..$][0..$][0..$])
{
}

Regards,

Bruce.