Empty array literals

[Lutger]

Michael Rynn wrote:

> 
>> That IS what Walter thinks, actually. It's being moved to libraries
>> (which is why there have been some nasty AA regressions in the past few
>> compiler releases :-( ).
> 
> Sounds good. So the  source is in druntime?
> Does that mean I can find out how to implement opIn ?.
> 
> I found the file druntime/src/rt/aaA.d
> 
> The code looks nice, and its got a function _aaIn, which "Determine if
> key is in aa".
> 
> I want to implement opIn for my own class, but I have not found an
> example.
> 
> This week I have made a RadixTree implementation, for immutable array
> keys based on char or ubyte only. Values no such restriction.
> 
> I measured its lookups can be ~20x faster than AA equivalent.
> Insertions somewhat slower than AA, even with a node preallocation heap
> for speedup.
> 
> I am sure I read about a radix tree in the past, but have not seen an
> implementation in current libraries.  It would be nice to have one, if
> only to stop me or others wasting time doing another. If its simple
> enough for me to make, there should be one there already.
> 
> I took a pretty recursive Java implementation (because I was supposed to
> be studying java) and reworked it.
> 
> So although AA are "in the library", there is not yet an obvious facility
> to completely replace the AA implementation with another equivalent (or
> even same) using non- druntime code and the facilities of struct,
> operator overrides etc.
> 
> Whats the magic hook that will connect D source AA type operator "in"  to
> a class or struct function of a Tree, AA or trie?  Is there any great
> advantage to the AA being struct rather than class based?
> 
> I might like to upload the radix tree implementation, to see how it can
> be improved.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael R.

Perhaps this dsource project will interest you: 
http://www.dsource.org/projects/aa