One case of array assignments

[H. S. Teoh]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:20:53PM +0100, John Colvin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 March 2013 at 21:07:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:59:33PM +0100, John Colvin wrote:
> >>On Wednesday, 13 March 2013 at 20:46:35 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> >[...]
> >>>Then what's the meaning of
> >>>
> >>>int[3][3] x = [1,2,3];
> >>>
> >>>Is it
> >>>
> >>>int[3][3] x = [[1,2,3],[1,2,3],[1,2,3]];
> >>>
> >>>or
> >>>
> >>>int[3][3] x = [[1,1,1],[2,2,2],[3,3,3]];
> >>
> >>the former, clearly. It directly follows from
> >>
> >>int[3] a = 1;
> >>
> >>Every element of the array is initialised to the value given. x is
> >>an array of arrays and hence each "element-array" is initialised to
> >>the array on the right hand side.
> >
> >I don't like this. It adds a lot of parsing complexities just for
> >some syntactic sugar with no clear benefits beyond being easier to
> >type. Why not just use the existing array operations syntax?
> >
> >	int[3] a;
> >	a[] = 1;	// makes intent clear
> >
> >	int[3][3] b;
> >	b[] = [1, 2, 3]; // fits into current syntax already
[...]
> This is supposed to be static initialisation, which is different,
> no?

Hmm. In that case, what about a syntax adapted from the current array
ops?

	int[3] a[] = 1;

But the problem is that it's ambiguous with the current specs that
interprets this as int[3][] a = 1.

Why is it bad to have to explicitly list the elements for static
initialization?


T

-- 
Real Programmers use "cat > a.out".