• "Nicolas Sicard" <dransic gmail.com> May 15 2012
• Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> May 15 2012
• "Nicolas Sicard" <dransic gmail.com> May 15 2012

"Nicolas Sicard" <dransic gmail.com> writes:

The implementation of std.container.Array!bool makes use of ulong 
instead of size_t as far as sizes and indices are concerned. This 
makes Array!bool inconsistent with other array-like types 
(including Array!T if !is(T==bool)) in 32-bit code. What would be 
the disadvantages of using size_t?

Thanks,
Nicolas

Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:

On 15.05.2012 13:44, Nicolas Sicard wrote:
 The implementation of std.container.Array!bool makes use of ulong
 instead of size_t as far as sizes and indices are concerned. This makes
 Array!bool inconsistent with other array-like types (including Array!T
 if !is(T==bool)) in 32-bit code. What would be the disadvantages of
 using size_t?

 Thanks,
 Nicolas


doubtful if you can always fetch such big piece of contiguous memory 
from OS it's still possible. And 32bit bit-indexes just fail to address it.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

"Nicolas Sicard" <dransic gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 10:04:52 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
 On 15.05.2012 13:44, Nicolas Sicard wrote:
 The implementation of std.container.Array!bool makes use of 
 ulong
 instead of size_t as far as sizes and indices are concerned. 
 This makes
 Array!bool inconsistent with other array-like types (including 
 Array!T
 if !is(T==bool)) in 32-bit code. What would be the 
 disadvantages of
 using size_t?

 Thanks,
 Nicolas


 While it's doubtful if you can always fetch such big piece of 
 contiguous memory from OS it's still possible. And 32bit 
 bit-indexes just fail to address it.


Yes, I understand this limitation. But from another theoretical 
point of view, length not returning a size_t is odd for a 
container (std.bitmanip.BitArray.length did).

But I am ok if it is more needful for an array of bool to be able 
to address the full memory...

Thanks,
Nicolas