www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - From the D Blog -- GSoC Report: Step

reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Wojciech Szęszoł has contributed a post describing his experience 
working on DStep for this year's GSoC. The post is at [1] and is 
on reddit at [2].

[1] https://dlang.org/blog/2016/09/09/gsoc-report-dstep/
[2] 
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/51xk65/from_the_d_blog_gsoc_report_dstep/
Sep 09 2016
parent reply Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 9/9/16, Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 Wojciech Szęszoł has contributed a post describing his experience
 working on DStep for this year's GSoC. The post is at [1] and is
 on reddit at [2].


With regards to Sets missing from the language:

-----
struct Set(T)
{
    void[0][T] set;  // void[0] should not allocate (according to
ancient manuscripts)
    alias set this;

    void put ( ) ( auto ref T input )
    {
        this.set[input] = [];
    }
}

void main ( )
{
    Set!int set;

    set.put(1);
    set.put(5);

    assert(1 in set);
    assert(5 in set);
    assert(4 !in set);
}
-----

I'm not sure about any special syntax which is expected for languages
which have built-in sets. It would probably be overkill to add syntax
support, but I'm not sure how often people use set literals or not.
Sep 09 2016
parent reply ciechowoj <keepitsimplesirius gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 September 2016 at 17:48:10 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic 
wrote:

 With regards to Sets missing from the language:
 [...]


Sure, but even if it is simple, there should be some standardized 
way to do this. To not force the people to invent the set 
interface in every project again and again. And newcomers will 
look for it in the standard docs, and not in ancient manuscripts. 
I mean it isn't obvious that one should use void[0][T]...


 I'm not sure about any special syntax which is expected for 
 languages which have built-in sets. It would probably be 
 overkill to add syntax support, but I'm not sure how often 
 people use set literals or not.


E.g. Python has build in literals for sets. C++ has sets in 
standard library. I see the points against adding something like 
this to the core of language, but it should be at least in the 
standard library.
Sep 09 2016
parent reply jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 September 2016 at 18:22:02 UTC, ciechowoj wrote:

 I'm not sure about any special syntax which is expected for 
 languages which have built-in sets. It would probably be 
 overkill to add syntax support, but I'm not sure how often 
 people use set literals or not.


 E.g. Python has build in literals for sets. C++ has sets in 
 standard library. I see the points against adding something 
 like this to the core of language, but it should be at least in 
 the standard library.


You might find the following SO question informative.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7162274/why-is-d-missing-container-classes
Sep 09 2016
parent Yuxuan Shui <yshuiv7 gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 September 2016 at 18:46:30 UTC, jmh530 wrote:

 On Friday, 9 September 2016 at 18:22:02 UTC, ciechowoj wrote:

 I'm not sure about any special syntax which is expected for 
 languages which have built-in sets. It would probably be 
 overkill to add syntax support, but I'm not sure how often 
 people use set literals or not.


 E.g. Python has build in literals for sets. C++ has sets in 
 standard library. I see the points against adding something 
 like this to the core of language, but it should be at least 
 in the standard library.


 You might find the following SO question informative.

 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7162274/why-is-d-missing-container-classes


That was 5 years ago! Why do things move so slowly...
Sep 10 2016