import std.algorithm;
import std.concurrency;

void main() {
	Tid[] tids = [];
	Tid tid = thisTid;
	tids ~= tid;
	tids.remove(tid);
}

Why does this not compile?

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 12:11:22 UTC, Casper Færgemand wrote:
> import std.algorithm;
> import std.concurrency;
>
> void main() {
> 	Tid[] tids = [];
> 	Tid tid = thisTid;
> 	tids ~= tid;
> 	tids.remove(tid);
> }
>
> Why does this not compile?

Because "remove" takes an "offset" as an argument, not an element.

To remove an element, I *think* you do it this way:

tids = tids.remove!(a=>a == tid)();

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 13:16:18 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> Because "remove" takes an "offset" as an argument, not an element.
>
> To remove an element, I *think* you do it this way:
>
> tids = tids.remove!(a=>a == tid)();

Thanks a lot. I was trying to get that part to work, but I had a hard time realizing that => was a lambda and not a >=. x.x

Casper Færgemand:

>> To remove an element, I *think* you do it this way:
>>
>> tids = tids.remove!(a=>a == tid)();

is that removing only 0 or 1 items?

Bye,
bearophile

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 13:51:51 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Casper Færgemand:
>
>>> To remove an element, I *think* you do it this way:
>>>
>>> tids = tids.remove!(a=>a == tid)();
>
> is that removing only 0 or 1 items?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

It removes all items that match the tid.

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 13:51:51 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Casper Færgemand:
>
>>> To remove an element, I *think* you do it this way:
>>>
>>> tids = tids.remove!(a=>a == tid)();
>
> is that removing only 0 or 1 items?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Maybe you confusing the new style lambda for a "greater equal" operator? I can't make sense of your question any other way.

monarch_dodra:

> Maybe you confusing the new style lambda for a "greater equal" operator? I can't make sense of your question any other way.

My point was that the shown code doesn't remove only one item in presence of duplicated ones. In this case tid are unique, but in general using that code to remove one item is not a good idea.

Bye,
bearophile

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 15:41:58 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> monarch_dodra:
>
>> Maybe you confusing the new style lambda for a "greater equal" operator? I can't make sense of your question any other way.
>
> My point was that the shown code doesn't remove only one item in presence of duplicated ones. In this case tid are unique, but in general using that code to remove one item is not a good idea.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Ah... I see. Yeah, this will remove *all* items that match the TID. I'm not sure that's a problem in this context, but I you did want to remove "at most" 1 item, then this isn't the correct solution.

There's no phobos solution for that, but I guess it would be written something like:

template removeOne(alias pred, SwapStrategy s = SwapStrategy.stable)
{
    Range removeOne(Range)(Range range)
    {
        auto result = range.save;
        auto f = find!pred(range);
        if (f.empty) return result;

        static if (s == SwapStrategy.stable)
        {
            auto ff = f.save;
            f.popFront();
            ff.popBack;
            for ( ; !f.empty; f.popFront(), ff.popFront())
                moveFront(f, ff);
        }
        else
        {
            move(find.back, find.front);
        }
        result.popBack();
        return result;
    }
}

Disclaimer: Not actually tested. May also horribly fail on non-reference ranges.

monarch_dodra:

> There's no phobos solution for that,

There will be.

In the meantime use:
items = items.remove(items.countUntil(needle));

See also:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10959

Bye,
bearophile

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 16:48:45 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> monarch_dodra:
>
>> There's no phobos solution for that,
>
> There will be.
>
> In the meantime use:
> items = items.remove(items.countUntil(needle));

Hum... that requires iterating the range twice for a non-RA range. And you forgot a save:

items = items.remove(items.save.countUntil(needle));

But it *is* much simpler.

> See also:
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10959

Thx.

> Bye,
> bearophile