digitalmars.D.learn - How to define an interator to provide array like behaviour in a class?
- Gary Willoughby (13/13) Oct 16 2012 I want to do something like this (Collection is a custom type):
- Jonathan M Davis (18/34) Oct 16 2012 1. Define opApply (see section labeled "Foreach over Structs and Classes...
- Jacob Carlborg (4/7) Oct 16 2012 Why is that a bad idea?
- Jonathan M Davis (3/10) Oct 16 2012 For starters, iterating over the container would empty it.
- Jacob Carlborg (4/5) Oct 16 2012 Right, but that is really weird, in my opinion.
- Jonathan M Davis (7/11) Oct 17 2012 Well, what would you expect? Ranges are consumed when you iterate over t...
- Jacob Carlborg (4/9) Oct 17 2012 How does this work with built-in arrays?
- H. S. Teoh (13/23) Oct 17 2012 [...]
- =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= (6/17) Oct 17 2012 Array is a separate concept than slice; a slice provides access to the
- Jonathan M Davis (20/36) Oct 17 2012 Pretty much yeah. Thinking of arrays in D as containers in a mistake rea...
- Gary Willoughby (3/30) Oct 17 2012 Awesome thanks Jonathan! I've read that guide on ranges before
I want to do something like this (Collection is a custom type): Collection x = new Collection(); x.add(something); x.add(somethingElse); foreach(type value; x) { writeln(value); } Collection is a class with a private array member variable which actually holds the collection data entered via the add method. What do i need to add to the Collection class to make it iterable (whilst it's actually iterating through the member array) so the foreach loop works as expected?
Oct 16 2012
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 00:03:46 Gary Willoughby wrote:I want to do something like this (Collection is a custom type): Collection x = new Collection(); x.add(something); x.add(somethingElse); foreach(type value; x) { writeln(value); } Collection is a class with a private array member variable which actually holds the collection data entered via the add method. What do i need to add to the Collection class to make it iterable (whilst it's actually iterating through the member array) so the foreach loop works as expected?1. Define opApply (see section labeled "Foreach over Structs and Classes with opApply after here: http://dlang.org/statement.html#foreach_with_ranges) 2. Or make it a range (see http://dlang.org/statement.html#foreach_with_ranges and http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ranges.html ), which would probably be a bad idea, since containers really shouldn't be ranges. 3. Or do what std.container does and overload opSlice which returns a range over the container (see http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html#Slice and Overall, this is the best approach. But regardless of which approach you take, you really should read up on ranges if you want to be doing much with D's standard library, and http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ranges.html is the best tutorial on them at this point. There's also this recent article by Walter Bright which explains one of the main rationales behind ranges: http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/component-programming-in- d/240008321 - Jonathan M Davis
Oct 16 2012
On 2012-10-17 00:23, Jonathan M Davis wrote:2. Or make it a range (see http://dlang.org/statement.html#foreach_with_ranges and http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ranges.html ), which would probably be a bad idea, since containers really shouldn't be ranges.Why is that a bad idea? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Oct 16 2012
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 08:14:45 Jacob Carlborg wrote:On 2012-10-17 00:23, Jonathan M Davis wrote:For starters, iterating over the container would empty it. - Jonathan M Davis2. Or make it a range (see http://dlang.org/statement.html#foreach_with_ranges and http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ranges.html ), which would probably be a bad idea, since containers really shouldn't be ranges.Why is that a bad idea?
Oct 16 2012
On 2012-10-17 08:17, Jonathan M Davis wrote:For starters, iterating over the container would empty it.Right, but that is really weird, in my opinion. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Oct 16 2012
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 08:58:33 Jacob Carlborg wrote:On 2012-10-17 08:17, Jonathan M Davis wrote:Well, what would you expect? Ranges are consumed when you iterate over them. So, if an container is a range, it will be consumed when you iterate over it. That's the way that it _has_ to work given how ranges work, and that's why you overload opSlice to return a range which is iterated over rather than making the container itself a range. - Jonathan M DavisFor starters, iterating over the container would empty it.Right, but that is really weird, in my opinion.
Oct 17 2012
On 2012-10-17 17:45, Jonathan M Davis wrote:Well, what would you expect? Ranges are consumed when you iterate over them. So, if an container is a range, it will be consumed when you iterate over it. That's the way that it _has_ to work given how ranges work, and that's why you overload opSlice to return a range which is iterated over rather than making the container itself a range.How does this work with built-in arrays? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Oct 17 2012
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:58:52PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:On 2012-10-17 17:45, Jonathan M Davis wrote:[...] If I understand it correctly, arrays work because when you pass an array to a range function, you're actually passing a slice of it to the function. That slice gets consumed, but the original array is unchanged. T -- A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day. "In English," he said, "A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative." A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, yeah."Well, what would you expect? Ranges are consumed when you iterate over them. So, if an container is a range, it will be consumed when you iterate over it. That's the way that it _has_ to work given how ranges work, and that's why you overload opSlice to return a range which is iterated over rather than making the container itself a range.How does this work with built-in arrays?
Oct 17 2012
On 10/17/2012 09:58 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:On 2012-10-17 17:45, Jonathan M Davis wrote:Array is a separate concept than slice; a slice provides access to the elements of an array. Arrays are containers that are owned by the runtime, slices are ranges over their elements. Only the slices are consumed. AliWell, what would you expect? Ranges are consumed when you iterate over them. So, if an container is a range, it will be consumed when you iterate over it. That's the way that it _has_ to work given how ranges work, and that's why you overload opSlice to return a range which is iterated over rather than making the container itself a range.How does this work with built-in arrays?
Oct 17 2012
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:08:15 H. S. Teoh wrote:On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:58:52PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:Pretty much yeah. Thinking of arrays in D as containers in a mistake really. They're not, as weird as that may be. It's the runtime (or the block of memory in the runtime, depending on how you look at it) which is the container, and the array is just a slice into it. But even that's not really an accurate way of looking at it, because you can append to them (altering the size of the underlying container and possibly resulting in them pointing to a different block of memory). Kind of like how arrays are halfway between value types and reference types, they're sort of halfway between ranges and containers. It's quite unfortunate that arrays are by far the most commonly used type of range, because they're a horrible example of one when you get down to the details of how they work. Regardless, it's slicing that you're dealing with when doing range-based operations on arrays, so it's the slice that gets operated on and consumed rather than the original array. And just like how ranges which are structs normally get automatically saved when passed to functions, arrays automatically get saved because they get sliced. And foreach doesn't even use the range API on arrays anyway, so regardless of how they work as ranges, it wouldn't necessarily apply to foreach. - Jonathan M DavisOn 2012-10-17 17:45, Jonathan M Davis wrote:[...] If I understand it correctly, arrays work because when you pass an array to a range function, you're actually passing a slice of it to the function. That slice gets consumed, but the original array is unchanged.Well, what would you expect? Ranges are consumed when you iterate over them. So, if an container is a range, it will be consumed when you iterate over it. That's the way that it _has_ to work given how ranges work, and that's why you overload opSlice to return a range which is iterated over rather than making the container itself a range.How does this work with built-in arrays?
Oct 17 2012
1. Define opApply (see section labeled "Foreach over Structs and Classes with opApply after here: http://dlang.org/statement.html#foreach_with_ranges) 2. Or make it a range (see http://dlang.org/statement.html#foreach_with_ranges and http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ranges.html ), which would probably be a bad idea, since containers really shouldn't be ranges. 3. Or do what std.container does and overload opSlice which returns a range over the container (see http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html#Slice and http://dlang.org/phobos/std_container.html in addition to the Overall, this is the best approach. But regardless of which approach you take, you really should read up on ranges if you want to be doing much with D's standard library, and http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ranges.html is the best tutorial on them at this point. There's also this recent article by Walter Bright which explains one of the main rationales behind ranges: http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/component-programming-in- d/240008321 - Jonathan M DavisAwesome thanks Jonathan! I've read that guide on ranges before and they sound very interesting. I'm currently playing with recursive collections and opApply works great.
Oct 17 2012