www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - char literal cast to char and char[]

reply "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:
 Matthew: I'll pursue this myself, but you may recognise something


both a char and a char[] parameter.
 Walter: Yes, that is correct. You can force the issue using a cast on the

Is this something that's been deliberate, and subject to debate/experimentation? It seems like a bad idea to me, since a instance of a type is very different from an array of instances of the same (or any other) type
Mar 21 2003
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
news:b5gt7a$1pf1$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Matthew: I'll pursue this myself, but you may recognise something


both a char and a char[] parameter.
 Walter: Yes, that is correct. You can force the issue using a cast on


 literal.

 Is this something that's been deliberate, and subject to
 debate/experimentation? It seems like a bad idea to me, since a instance

 a type is very different from an array of instances of the same (or any
 other) type

I have some misgivings about it, but I think it needs a chance.
Mar 22 2003
parent reply "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:
What are the arguments in favour?

Against are the obvious confusing one I've said, and the practical one I was
discussing with you in the emails, namely that overloading

char[][] tokenise(char[] string, char[] delimiter, bit bElideBlanks, bit
bNullTerminateSlices);

with

char[][] tokenise(char[] string, char delimiter, bit bElideBlanks, bit
bNullTerminateSlices);

means that in client code I cannot type

  char[][] tokens = tokenise(source, ';', true, false);

without getting a compilation error, which seems preposterous. The overloads
are deliberate because - as you are aware from the offline discussion - I am
aiming for maximal performance, so do not wish to treat a single char as an
array of one element. (And why should I? Isn't D supposed to simplify
programming whilst not reducing programmer's ability for efficiency?)

Please explain.

Matthew



"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:b5i50d$2o49$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
 news:b5gt7a$1pf1$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Matthew: I'll pursue this myself, but you may recognise something




 both a char and a char[] parameter.

 Walter: Yes, that is correct. You can force the issue using a cast on


 literal.

 Is this something that's been deliberate, and subject to
 debate/experimentation? It seems like a bad idea to me, since a instance

 a type is very different from an array of instances of the same (or any
 other) type

I have some misgivings about it, but I think it needs a chance.

Mar 22 2003
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
news:b5ieup$2uqp$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 What are the arguments in favour?

Simplicity.
 Against are the obvious confusing one I've said, and the practical one I

 discussing with you in the emails, namely that overloading

 char[][] tokenise(char[] string, char[] delimiter, bit bElideBlanks, bit
 bNullTerminateSlices);

 with

 char[][] tokenise(char[] string, char delimiter, bit bElideBlanks, bit
 bNullTerminateSlices);

 means that in client code I cannot type

   char[][] tokens = tokenise(source, ';', true, false);

 without getting a compilation error, which seems preposterous. The

 are deliberate because - as you are aware from the offline discussion - I

 aiming for maximal performance, so do not wish to treat a single char as

 array of one element. (And why should I? Isn't D supposed to simplify
 programming whilst not reducing programmer's ability for efficiency?)

The ambiguity for overloads is a problem. I'll think about it some more.
Mar 22 2003
parent reply "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:b5ih1d$30ej$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
 news:b5ieup$2uqp$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 What are the arguments in favour?

Simplicity.

Come on, old bean! I need more than that.
 Against are the obvious confusing one I've said, and the practical one I

 discussing with you in the emails, namely that overloading

 char[][] tokenise(char[] string, char[] delimiter, bit bElideBlanks, bit
 bNullTerminateSlices);

 with

 char[][] tokenise(char[] string, char delimiter, bit bElideBlanks, bit
 bNullTerminateSlices);

 means that in client code I cannot type

   char[][] tokens = tokenise(source, ';', true, false);

 without getting a compilation error, which seems preposterous. The

 are deliberate because - as you are aware from the offline discussion -


 am
 aiming for maximal performance, so do not wish to treat a single char as

 array of one element. (And why should I? Isn't D supposed to simplify
 programming whilst not reducing programmer's ability for efficiency?)

The ambiguity for overloads is a problem. I'll think about it some more.

Mar 22 2003
parent "Vathix" <vathix kernel.net> writes:
I think, in that case, it should call the function that takes a char if
there's one character in the quotes.  Even if it doesn't seem to follow a
pattern, both functions should do the same thing, and char is accessed
faster :)
Mar 31 2003