I think that this code should be possible, and that the current error is misleading.

[test23.d]
int[] arr = [0,1,2,3];
int[arr.length] arr2;

void main()
{	
}

C:\Library\D\src\temp\test23.d(2): no property 'length' for type 'int[]'

The same occurs for a static array.

[test23.d]
int[4] arr = [0,1,2,3];
int[arr.length] arr2;

void main()
{	
}

C:\Library\D\src\temp\test23.d(2): no property 'length' for type 'int[4]'

I think that (at least) this latter example should be valid. Ideally both examples should be valid code as the length is clearly known at compile time.

In fact:

[test23.d]
int[] arr;
int[arr.length] arr2;

void main()
{	
}

would also technically be valid assuming "int[0] arr2;" was valid.

Regan

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:22:01 +1200, Regan Heath wrote:

> I think that this code should be possible, and that the current error is misleading.
> 
> [test23.d]
> int[] arr = [0,1,2,3];
> int[arr.length] arr2;
> 
> void main()
> {
> }
> 
> C:\Library\D\src\temp\test23.d(2): no property 'length' for type 'int[]'
> 
> The same occurs for a static array.
> 
> [test23.d]
> int[4] arr = [0,1,2,3];
> int[arr.length] arr2;
> 
> void main()
> {
> }
> 
> C:\Library\D\src\temp\test23.d(2): no property 'length' for type 'int[4]'
> 
> I think that (at least) this latter example should be valid. Ideally both examples should be valid code as the length is clearly known at compile time.
> 
> In fact:
> 
> [test23.d]
> int[] arr;
> int[arr.length] arr2;
> 
> void main()
> {
> }
> 
> would also technically be valid assuming "int[0] arr2;" was valid.
> 

Yep, I think you're right. Should be possible.


-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
22/03/2005 11:28:32 AM