• monarch_dodra (30/30) Aug 29 2012 D provides ways to operate on an entire (sub) slice:
• Timon Gehr (3/30) Aug 29 2012 Because the built-in arithmetic vector operators are supported by hardwa...
• ixid (7/9) Sep 01 2012 Should that matter from a user's point of view? It's a clean

"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:

D provides ways to operate on an entire (sub) slice:
int[] a = ... ;
a[] *= 5; //Multiply everything by 5.
a[0 .. 2] = 3; //Set indexes 0 to 1 to the value 3.

I was wondering if there was any way to do this for a specified 
function?

----
struct S
{
     void foo()
     {
         writeln("foo");
     }
}

void bar(S s)
{
     writeln("bar");
}

void main()
{
   S[5] a;
   a[].foo(); //undefined identifier 'foo'
   a[].bar(); //cannot implicitly convert expression (a[]) of type 
S[] to S
};
----
I know I can just foreach it, but it doesn't quite have the same 
expressive power.

If the built in arithmetic types have this power, why not 
functions?

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 08/29/2012 03:38 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
 D provides ways to operate on an entire (sub) slice:
 int[] a = ... ;
 a[] *= 5; //Multiply everything by 5.
 a[0 .. 2] = 3; //Set indexes 0 to 1 to the value 3.

 I was wondering if there was any way to do this for a specified function?

 ----
 struct S
 {
      void foo()
      {
          writeln("foo");
      }
 }

 void bar(S s)
 {
      writeln("bar");
 }

 void main()
 {
    S[5] a;
    a[].foo(); //undefined identifier 'foo'
    a[].bar(); //cannot implicitly convert expression (a[]) of type S[] to S
 };
 ----
 I know I can just foreach it, but it doesn't quite have the same
 expressive power.

Yes it does.

 If the built in arithmetic types have this power, why not functions?

Because the built-in arithmetic vector operators are supported by hardware.

"ixid" <nuaccount gmail.com> writes:

Because the built-in arithmetic vector operators are supported 
by hardware.

Should that matter from a user's point of view? It's a clean 
syntax that should be made more univeral. It'd be nice to be able 
to do things like:

return a[] + b[];

and using that in lambdas as well without needing the unnecessary 
repetition of

return a[] = a[] + b[];