• Dr.Dizel <Dr.Dizel_member pathlink.com> Jan 23 2004
• imr1984 <imr1984_member pathlink.com> Jan 23 2004
• Dr.Dizel <Dr.Dizel_member pathlink.com> Jan 23 2004
• Andrew Edwards <edwardsac spamfreeusa.com> Jan 23 2004
• Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> Jan 23 2004
• J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> Jan 23 2004

Dr.Dizel <Dr.Dizel_member pathlink.com> writes:

Here if I change string "_vec.length = _vec.length + 1;" to "++_vec.length;" it
reports me a bug. :-\ Am I have a bug or dmd. :)

class vebu
{
uint _last = 0;
ubyte[4096][] _vec;

this() { _vec.length = 1;}

public:
void add(ubyte _byte)
{
if (_last >= _vec[0].length) { _vec.length = _vec.length + 1;  _last = 0;}
_vec[_vec.length - 1][_last] = _byte; ++_last;
}

void add(ubyte[] _p1) { foreach(ubyte F; _p1) add(F);}
uint length() { return (_vec.length - 1) * 4096 + _last;}
//...	

}

imr1984 <imr1984_member pathlink.com> writes:

what you are trying to do isnt supported, although i wish it was

In article <buqr9u$2hpd$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Dr.Dizel says...
Here if I change string "_vec.length = _vec.length + 1;" to "++_vec.length;" it
reports me a bug. :-\ Am I have a bug or dmd. :)

class vebu
{
uint _last = 0;
ubyte[4096][] _vec;

this() { _vec.length = 1;}

public:
void add(ubyte _byte)
{
if (_last >= _vec[0].length) { _vec.length = _vec.length + 1;  _last = 0;}
_vec[_vec.length - 1][_last] = _byte; ++_last;
}

void add(ubyte[] _p1) { foreach(ubyte F; _p1) add(F);}
uint length() { return (_vec.length - 1) * 4096 + _last;}
//...	

}

Dr.Dizel <Dr.Dizel_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <bur463$30a3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, imr1984 says...
what you are trying to do isnt supported, although i wish it was

Andrew Edwards <edwardsac spamfreeusa.com> writes:

Dr.Dizel wrote:
 In article <bur463$30a3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, imr1984 says...
 
what you are trying to do isnt supported, although i wish it was


 But... it works in this case :-\
 
 



	_vec.length = _vec.length + 1;

that is authorized in D. What is not authorized is the incrementation or 
decrementation of properties using ++ or --.

so you cannot type

	++_vec.length
	_vec.length++

in hopes of obtaining the same outcome as above (it is not supported)!

Andrew

Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:

Andrew Edwards wrote:
 so you cannot type
 
     ++_vec.length
     _vec.length++


However, what is the purpose of this? If the purpose is to add a new 
element el, simply do:

vec ~= el;

-eye

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

Andrew Edwards wrote:
 Dr.Dizel wrote:
 
 In article <bur463$30a3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, imr1984 says...

 what you are trying to do isnt supported, although i wish it was


 But... it works in this case :-\


 
     _vec.length = _vec.length + 1;
 
 that is authorized in D. What is not authorized is the incrementation or 
 decrementation of properties using ++ or --.
 
 so you cannot type
 
     ++_vec.length
     _vec.length++
 
 in hopes of obtaining the same outcome as above (it is not supported)!
 
 Andrew



I'd still like to be able to do vec.length++, but the compiler 
deliberately prohibits this:

"Note: Properties currently cannot be the lvalue of an op=, ++, or -- 
operator."
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/property.html (bottom of page)

I think the reason might be the one that Sean Palmer suggested, "Am I 
correct in saying that the problem is that we can't know if postfix++ 
happens before or after the assignment, which depends on the ++ 
executing before the assignment, or it'll store into invalid memory?"
D/12869

Other theories:
D/12707
D/12858

-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/