Why?

This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that requires hasLength.

On 04/01/2016 01:50 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> Why?
>
> This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that requires
> hasLength.

Sounds easy to implement. Please file an enhancement request:

  https://issues.dlang.org/

Ali

On Friday, 1 April 2016 at 20:50:32 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> Why?
>
> This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that requires hasLength.

aa.keys.length

On Saturday, April 02, 2016 15:38:30 Ozan via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Friday, 1 April 2016 at 20:50:32 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> > Why?
> >
> > This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that requires hasLength.
>
> aa.keys.length

That allocates an array. Doing that would be like doing
aa.byKeys().array().length. And associate arrays already have length. You
can do

auto len = aa.length;

The problem is when you want to operate on a range, and the function that you want to pass it to wants length on the range. If byKeys returned a range with length, then that would work, but since it doesn't, it doesn't. Having other ways to get the length doesn't help.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday, April 02, 2016 15:38:30 Ozan via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>> On Friday, 1 April 2016 at 20:50:32 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
>> > Why?
>> >
>> > This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that requires hasLength.
>>
>> aa.keys.length
>
> That allocates an array. Doing that would be like doing
> aa.byKeys().array().length. And associate arrays already have length. You
> can do
>
> auto len = aa.length;
>
> The problem is when you want to operate on a range, and the function that you want to pass it to wants length on the range. If byKeys returned a range with length, then that would work, but since it doesn't, it doesn't. Having other ways to get the length doesn't help.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Maybe

aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)

On Sunday, April 03, 2016 23:46:10 John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 02, 2016 15:38:30 Ozan via
> >
> > Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> >> On Friday, 1 April 2016 at 20:50:32 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> >> > Why?
> >> >
> >> > This is annoying when I need to feed it into a function that requires hasLength.
> >>
> >> aa.keys.length
> >
> > That allocates an array. Doing that would be like doing
> > aa.byKeys().array().length. And associate arrays already have
> > length. You
> > can do
> >
> > auto len = aa.length;
> >
> > The problem is when you want to operate on a range, and the function that you want to pass it to wants length on the range. If byKeys returned a range with length, then that would work, but since it doesn't, it doesn't. Having other ways to get the length doesn't help.
>
> Maybe
>
> aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)

Yeah, that's a clever workaround.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Monday, 4 April 2016 at 00:50:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, April 03, 2016 23:46:10 John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>> On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> > [...]
>>
>> Maybe
>>
>> aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)
>
> Yeah, that's a clever workaround.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

So should we not add length to byKey?

On Monday, April 04, 2016 02:32:56 Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Monday, 4 April 2016 at 00:50:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 03, 2016 23:46:10 John Colvin via
> >
> > Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >>
> >> Maybe
> >>
> >> aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)
> >
> > Yeah, that's a clever workaround.
>
> So should we not add length to byKey?

I don't see any reason for the result of byKey to not have length. It's just that given that it doesn't currently have length, John's suggestion provides a way to turn it into a range with length.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Monday, 4 April 2016 at 02:32:56 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> On Monday, 4 April 2016 at 00:50:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 03, 2016 23:46:10 John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 2 April 2016 at 16:00:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> > [...]
>>>
>>> Maybe
>>>
>>> aa.byKey().takeExactly(aa.length)
>>
>> Yeah, that's a clever workaround.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> So should we not add length to byKey?

Yes. But until that happens, my workaround allows you to carry on getting work done :)