I saw the Slashdot article, visited the web site, and was interested enough to download the Linux compiler and start playing.

Right away, I ran into confusion:  dynamic arrays don't work like static arrays. For example, I can do:

char [] s3="ABCDEFGH";
char [5] s4="01234";
//...
s4[0..2]=s3[0..2];

but not

char [] s3="ABCDEFGH";
char [] s4="01234";
//...
s4[0..2]=s3[0..2];

Seeems wrong to me to have types that seem identical when you see them in code but in fact aren't??

One of the advantages listed at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/sdwest/index.html is "removal of special cases".  Sure looks like a special case to me, and one the compiler isn't even aware of: the code complils, but seg faults.

I'm still playing; there's enough good stuff here that I'm not turned off.  This is just a minor gripe, or I stupidly missed something obvious.

tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>I saw the Slashdot article, visited the web site, and was interested enough to
>download the Linux compiler and start playing.
>
>Right away, I ran into confusion:  dynamic arrays don't work like static arrays.
>For example, I can do:
>  
>
Yeah there are allot of these minor consistency problems with arrays (you can't do operations on them yet either).   With things like this, I think the programmer should be able to do what they expect to be able to do.  I've a feeling (and hoping) that Walter will fix these up before 1.0.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

I tried it on Linux, and got a segfault.  Looks like a bug to me.

Russ

tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
> I saw the Slashdot article, visited the web site, and was interested enough to
> download the Linux compiler and start playing.
> 
> Right away, I ran into confusion:  dynamic arrays don't work like static arrays.
> For example, I can do:
> 
> char [] s3="ABCDEFGH";
> char [5] s4="01234";
> //...
> s4[0..2]=s3[0..2];
> 
> but not
> 
> char [] s3="ABCDEFGH";
> char [] s4="01234";
> //...
> s4[0..2]=s3[0..2];
> 
> Seeems wrong to me to have types that seem identical when you see them in code
> but in fact aren't??  
> 
> One of the advantages listed at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/sdwest/index.html
> is "removal of special cases".  Sure looks like a special case to me, and one
> the compiler isn't even aware of: the code complils, but seg faults.
> 
> I'm still playing; there's enough good stuff here that I'm not turned off.  This
> is just a minor gripe, or I stupidly missed something obvious.