• Jethro (17/17) Apr 08 2017 void foo(A...)(A a)
• rikki cattermole (20/35) Apr 08 2017 A char and a string is no where near the same thing.

Jethro <qyzz gr.ff> writes:

void foo(A...)(A a)
{
     foreach(aa; a)
     {
         for(int i = 0; i < a.length; i++)
             ...
     }
}

A can be strings or char, how can I easily deal with both? (e.g., 
a.length = 1 for a being a char... and also a[0] = a, so to 
speak).

That is, I want chars to be treated as strings of length 1, since 
I have written my code to work with strings, no reason it 
shouldn't work with chars. I realize we can't use the above 
notation but I can't get the type of aa because D complains it is 
unknown at compile time. I could use A[k] but it requires extra 
work.

rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:

On 09/04/2017 7:30 AM, Jethro wrote:
 void foo(A...)(A a)
 {
     foreach(aa; a)
     {
         for(int i = 0; i < a.length; i++)
             ...
     }
 }

 A can be strings or char, how can I easily deal with both? (e.g.,
 a.length = 1 for a being a char... and also a[0] = a, so to speak).

 That is, I want chars to be treated as strings of length 1, since I have
 written my code to work with strings, no reason it shouldn't work with
 chars. I realize we can't use the above notation but I can't get the
 type of aa because D complains it is unknown at compile time. I could
 use A[k] but it requires extra work.

A char and a string is no where near the same thing.
A char is a single byte, a string is a array which is made up of a 
pointer to a set of chars plus a length (size_t WORD size of cpu e.g. 
4/8 bytes).

You would need to wrap up that input char e.g. string s = 
cast(immutable)[c];

But here is what I would recommend:

void foo(char[] c...) {
	string[] args;
	foreach(v; c) {
		args ~= cast(immutable)[c]
	}
	foo(args);
}

void foo(string[] s...) {
   // ...
}

This will remove the need for template specialization (or "implicit" 
support for e.g. wstring and dstring).