"Vlad Levenfeld" <vlevenfeld gmail.com> writes:

Is this possible?

The documentation for std.container lists "in" as an operator in 
the container API but only associative arrays actually seem to 
support it.

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

struct S
{
	int opIn_r(int key)
	{
		return key*2;
	}
}

void main()
{
	assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
}

"Vlad Levenfeld" <vlevenfeld gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:14:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
 struct S
 {
 	int opIn_r(int key)
 	{
 		return key*2;
 	}
 }

 void main()
 {
 	assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
 }

Thanks! I wonder, why the _r and lack of documentation?

=?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 07/02/2014 07:35 AM, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:14:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
 struct S
 {
     int opIn_r(int key)
     {
         return key*2;
     }
 }

 void main()
 {
     assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
 }

 Thanks! I wonder, why the _r

I think it is the old syntax, meaning "this is the overload for when an 
S object is on the right-hand side".

 and lack of documentation?

It appears in the binary operator table:

   http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html#Binary

Also see the section 'Inclusion query by opBinaryRight!"in"' here:

   http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/operator_overloading.html

Ali

"Kozzi11" <kozzi11 gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:35:55 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:14:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
 struct S
 {
 	int opIn_r(int key)
 	{
 		return key*2;
 	}
 }

 void main()
 {
 	assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
 }

 Thanks! I wonder, why the _r and lack of documentation?

Maybe something from old days? But in current <a
href="http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html#Binary"
target="_blank">doc</a> there is a opBinary:

struct S
{
      int opBinaryRight(string op : "in")(int key)
      {
          return key*2;
      }
}

void main()
{
      assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
}

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 15:36:23 UTC, Kozzi11 wrote:
 Thanks! I wonder, why the _r and lack of documentation?

 Maybe something from old days? But in current <a
 href="http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html#Binary"
 target="_blank">doc</a> there is a opBinary:

Yep, I think it is D1 legacy approach. opBinary should be more 
appropriate.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Dicebot:

 Yep, I think it is D1 legacy approach. opBinary should be more 
 appropriate.

I hope the usage of the old operator overloading functions will 
generate deprecation messages soon.

Bye,
bearophile

"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn" <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> writes:

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:35:54PM +0000, Vlad Levenfeld via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 14:14:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
struct S
{
	int opIn_r(int key)
	{
		return key*2;
	}
}

void main()
{
	assert((42 in S.init) == 84);
}

 
 Thanks! I wonder, why the _r and lack of documentation?

Don't use opIn_r, that's a relic from D1. Instead, use this:

	struct S {
		int opBinaryRight(string op)(int key)
			if (op == "in")
		{
			return key*2;
		}
	}


T

-- 
I think Debian's doing something wrong, `apt-get install pesticide', doesn't
seem to remove the bugs on my system! -- Mike Dresser

"Vlad Levenfeld" <vlevenfeld gmail.com> writes:

Ah yes I never noticed that "in" was in the binary op table. In
my defense, searching for "in" usually yields too many results to
be useful. Thanks to everyone for your help!