A char[char[]] is an array of chars, indexed by char[]s, but a char[][char[]] is, as far as the compiler seems to be concerned, an array of char[][]s, indexed by char[]s.

Am I missing something obvious, or is this really weird? :)

Andy Friesen wrote:
> A char[char[]] is an array of chars, indexed by char[]s, but a char[][char[]] is, as far as the compiler seems to be concerned, an array of char[][]s, indexed by char[]s.

It would be a bug, but I have code using char[][char[]] successfully with the intended meaning.  How does the compiler "[seem] to be concerned"?

Burton Radons wrote:
> Andy Friesen wrote:
> 
>> A char[char[]] is an array of chars, indexed by char[]s, but a char[][char[]] is, as far as the compiler seems to be concerned, an array of char[][]s, indexed by char[]s.
> 
> 
> It would be a bug, but I have code using char[][char[]] successfully with the intended meaning.  How does the compiler "[seem] to be concerned"?
> 

ooooookay.

I can't reproduce it now, but I was getting a "cannot convert char[][] to char[]" error when trying to extract an element from a char[][char[]].

Maybe it works as:

(char[])[char[]] x;

or

char[char[]][] x;

or

char( x[char[]] )[];

?

C-style typespecs always were confusing.  I haven't kept track of how D typespecs improve upon C.  It's certainly not readable left-to-right.

I assume you're after an associative array mapping strings to strings?

alias char[] string;
string[string] x;

I'm also assuming that D, like C, allows grouping of parts of typespecs by explicit parenthesis.  I haven't checked.

Walter, care to clarify?

Sean

"Andy Friesen" <andy@ikagames.com> wrote in message news:b943oa$1nh3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Burton Radons wrote:
> > Andy Friesen wrote:
> >
> >> A char[char[]] is an array of chars, indexed by char[]s, but a char[][char[]] is, as far as the compiler seems to be concerned, an array of char[][]s, indexed by char[]s.
> >
> >
> > It would be a bug, but I have code using char[][char[]] successfully with the intended meaning.  How does the compiler "[seem] to be
concerned"?
> >
>
> ooooookay.
>
> I can't reproduce it now, but I was getting a "cannot convert char[][] to char[]" error when trying to extract an element from a char[][char[]].

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean@verizon.net> wrote in message news:b94ajf$1tdq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Maybe it works as:
>
> (char[])[char[]] x;
>
> or
>
> char[char[]][] x;
>
> or
>
> char( x[char[]] )[];
>
> ?
>
> C-style typespecs always were confusing.  I haven't kept track of how D typespecs improve upon C.  It's certainly not readable left-to-right.
>
> I assume you're after an associative array mapping strings to strings?
>
> alias char[] string;
> string[string] x;
>
> I'm also assuming that D, like C, allows grouping of parts of typespecs by explicit parenthesis.  I haven't checked.
>
> Walter, care to clarify?

It works left-to-right, not inside-out as C does. As such, paretheses are not necessary.