"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bh38pd$2hhg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Julio César Carrascal Urquijo" <adnoctum@phreaker.net> wrote in message news:bddhhf$bqj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > why not simple assignment operator?
> > >
> > > myArray = {"red" = "ff0000", // ...
> >
> >
> > Since structs are initialized with the ":" operator associative arrays should to
> >
> > char[char[]] myArray = [
> >     "red": "ff0000",
> >     "green": "00ff00",
> >     ...
> > ]
>
> I think it's a good syntax too.
>
why not the perl/php syntax
(and isn't it char[][key_type] for a assoc array (key of char[]) of arrays
of char ??)
char[][char[]] myArray = [
    "red" => "ff0000",
    "green" =>  "00ff00"
];

I don't object to the  ':' and can see the consistency, seems to me that if another lang (derived from the same roots) has a syntax for something it seems better to copy it unmodified (as long as it fits).

"Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn@l8night.co.uk> wrote in message news:bh3ggq$2obn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bh38pd$2hhg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > "Julio César Carrascal Urquijo" <adnoctum@phreaker.net> wrote in message news:bddhhf$bqj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > why not simple assignment operator?
> > > >
> > > > myArray = {"red" = "ff0000", // ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Since structs are initialized with the ":" operator associative arrays should to
> > >
> > > char[char[]] myArray = [
> > >     "red": "ff0000",
> > >     "green": "00ff00",
> > >     ...
> > > ]
> >
> > I think it's a good syntax too.
> >
> why not the perl/php syntax
> (and isn't it char[][key_type] for a assoc array (key of char[]) of arrays
> of char ??)
> char[][char[]] myArray = [
>     "red" => "ff0000",
>     "green" =>  "00ff00"
> ];
>
> I don't object to the  ':' and can see the consistency, seems to me that
if
> another lang (derived from the same roots) has a syntax for something it
> seems better to copy it unmodified (as long as it fits).

=> would work, but I think the consistency of : gives it a slight edge.

>>I don't object to the  ':' and can see the consistency, seems to me that
> 
> if
> 
>>another lang (derived from the same roots) has a syntax for something it
>>seems better to copy it unmodified (as long as it fits).
> 
> 
> => would work, but I think the consistency of : gives it a slight edge.
> 
> 

I tend to agree with Walter (how can I go wrong? ;).

'=>' does not feel consistant with a language like D, though it does look attractive.  It seems like something Ada would have. A colon feels more natural and C-like.  It's used in the 'case' and 'goto' statements (and ?:).  It just feels more fitting to the associative array context where an effect is being related to a cause.

Later,

John