Hello. I know we already have ~= for character arrays and int arrays.
However they don't work for class/struct arrays and character arrays of arrays.

Right now, If I want to add something to a class or array of character arrays i have do to this...

// this is what I do
items.length = items.length+1; // first I add one to the array
items[length-1] = "string"; // then I set the last index to what I want

What I'd like to see is an operator that works like push_back() in c++ vectors.

Where all you'd have to type is

items &&= "string"; // i think &= is already used?
or
items pushback "string";
or
items #= "string";

or something to that effect, i'm not sure about what operator would fit nicely.

What do you think? Or should we just leave this up to templates (DTL?) with a items.pushback("string"); syntax?

it seems nicer having it built in though.

clayasaurus wrote:

> Hello. I know we already have ~= for character arrays and int arrays. However they don't work for class/struct arrays and character arrays of arrays.

Can you post an example? I just tried
char[][] items;
items ~= "item1";
items ~= "item2";
printf("%d %.*s %.*s\n",items.length,items[0],items[1]);
and got the (correct) answer
2 item1 item2

> Right now, If I want to add something to a class or array of character arrays i have do to this...
> 
> // this is what I do
> items.length = items.length+1; // first I add one to the array
> items[length-1] = "string"; // then I set the last index to what I want
> 
> What I'd like to see is an operator that works like push_back() in c++
> vectors.
> 
> Where all you'd have to type is
> 
> items &&= "string"; // i think &= is already used?
> or
> items pushback "string";
> or
> items #= "string";
> 
> or something to that effect, i'm not sure about what operator would fit nicely.
> 
> What do you think? Or should we just leave this up to templates (DTL?)
> with a items.pushback("string"); syntax?
> 
> it seems nicer having it built in though.

"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cg6h7a$15h3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Hello. I know we already have ~= for character arrays and int arrays. However they don't work for class/struct arrays and character arrays of arrays.
>

But ~= works for all arrays.


class Foo {}

int main()
{
 char[][] strings;
 strings ~= "mystring";
 strings ~= "foo";
 strings ~= "etc";

 Foo[] fa;
 fa ~= new Foo;

 return 0;
}


Or am I misunderstanding you?

"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cg6h7a$15h3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Hello. I know we already have ~= for character arrays and int arrays. However they don't work for class/struct arrays and character arrays of arrays.
>
> Right now, If I want to add something to a class or array of character arrays i have do to this...
>
> // this is what I do
> items.length = items.length+1; // first I add one to the array
> items[length-1] = "string"; // then I set the last index to what I want
>
> What I'd like to see is an operator that works like push_back() in c++
> vectors.
>
> Where all you'd have to type is
>
> items &&= "string"; // i think &= is already used?
> or
> items pushback "string";
> or
> items #= "string";
>
> or something to that effect, i'm not sure about what operator would fit nicely.

I'm more than a little surprised that ~= does not work for arrays of all types. Are you sure that's correct? (Not casting aspersions; just finding hard to believe)

> What do you think? Or should we just leave this up to templates (DTL?)
> with a items.pushback("string"); syntax?
>
> it seems nicer having it built in though.

I think ~= should work for all arrays.

Vathix wrote:
> "clayasaurus" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cg6h7a$15h3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Hello. I know we already have ~= for character arrays and int arrays.
>>However they don't work for class/struct arrays and character arrays of
>>arrays.
>>
> 
> 
> But ~= works for all arrays.
> 
> 
> class Foo {}
> 
> int main()
> {
>  char[][] strings;
>  strings ~= "mystring";
>  strings ~= "foo";
>  strings ~= "etc";
> 
>  Foo[] fa;
>  fa ~= new Foo;
> 
>  return 0;
> }
> 
> 
> Or am I misunderstanding you?
> 

Maybe I am just dumb or something. But anyway

import std.stdio;

struct Bob
{
  char[] bob;
}

int main(char[][] args)
{
  Bob[] bob;
	
  Bob bob1, bob2;
	
  bob1.bob = "jim";
  bob2.bob = "bob";
	
  bob ~= bob1 ~= bob2; // this does not work
	
  //bob.length = 2; // this does
  //bob[0] = bob1;
  //bob[1] = bob2;
	
		
  writefln(bob[0].bob);
  writefln(bob[1].bob);

  return 0;
}

I get the error "Can only concatenate arrays," but is bob not an array? *confused*

Ben Hinkle wrote:
> clayasaurus wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hello. I know we already have ~= for character arrays and int arrays.
>>However they don't work for class/struct arrays and character arrays of
>>arrays.
> 
> 
> Can you post an example? I just tried
> char[][] items;
> items ~= "item1";
> items ~= "item2";
> printf("%d %.*s %.*s\n",items.length,items[0],items[1]);
> and got the (correct) answer
> 2 item1 item2
> 
> 

Aha. Well what I'd like is just to do

char[] items;
items ~= "item1";
items ~= "item2";
printf("%d %.*s %.*s\n",items.length,items[0],items[1]);
ang get the correct answer. with this i get seg fault yay.

withouth the ~= operator, of course.

Matthew wrote:

> I'm more than a little surprised that ~= does not work for arrays of all types. Are you sure that's correct? (Not
> casting aspersions; just finding hard to believe)
> 

What I would like (like push back in c++ vector) is for it to add one to the array length and then fill it with given value.

like

char[] items;

items add "bob";
items add "monkey";

and have items become an array the length of 2 with

items[0] = "bob"
and
items[1] = "monkey"

clayasaurus wrote:

> Hello. I know we already have ~= for character arrays and int arrays.
> However they don't work for class/struct arrays and character arrays of arrays.
> 
> Right now, If I want to add something to a class or array of character arrays i have do to this...
> 
> // this is what I do
> items.length = items.length+1; // first I add one to the array
> items[length-1] = "string"; // then I set the last index to what I want
> 
> What I'd like to see is an operator that works like push_back() in c++ vectors.
> 
> Where all you'd have to type is
> 
> items &&= "string"; // i think &= is already used?
> or
> items pushback "string";
> or
> items #= "string";
> 
> or something to that effect, i'm not sure about what operator would fit nicely.
> 
> What do you think? Or should we just leave this up to templates (DTL?) with a items.pushback("string"); syntax?
> 
> it seems nicer having it built in though.

The trick is that ~= appends a single element to an array, whereas ~ combines two arrays:

    Spam[] ni;
    Spam[] eggs;

    eggs ~= new Spam();        // ok
    eggs = ni ~ ni ~ ni;       // ok
    eggs ~= ni;                // no
    eggs = eggs ~ new Spam();  // no

It's inconsistent, but it's better than the alternative:

    Spam temp = new Spam();
    eggs ~= &(temp)[0..1]

:)

 -- andy

clayasaurus wrote:
> 
> Ben Hinkle wrote:
> > clayasaurus wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hello. I know we already have ~= for character arrays and int arrays. However they don't work for class/struct arrays and character arrays of arrays.
> >
> >
> > Can you post an example? I just tried
> > char[][] items;
> > items ~= "item1";
> > items ~= "item2";
> > printf("%d %.*s %.*s\n",items.length,items[0],items[1]);
> > and got the (correct) answer
> > 2 item1 item2
> >
> >
> 
> Aha. Well what I'd like is just to do
> 
> char[] items;

  This can hold only one string.

> items ~= "item1";
> items ~= "item2";
> printf("%d %.*s %.*s\n",items.length,items[0],items[1]);

  item[0], item[1] refernce the first and second character.
  printing in string format uses character as adresses

> ang get the correct answer. with this i get seg fault yay.

  yes, a fault is to be expected.

> withouth the ~= operator, of course.

-- 
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

In article <cg6k22$18s7$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...

>The trick is that ~= appends a single element to an array, whereas ~ combines two arrays:
>
>     Spam[] ni;
>     Spam[] eggs;
>
>     eggs ~= new Spam();        // ok
>     eggs = ni ~ ni ~ ni;       // ok
>     eggs ~= ni;                // no
>     eggs = eggs ~ new Spam();  // no

Is that really true? Wow. I had assumed that

#    a ~= b;

was equivalent to:

#    a = a ~ b;

Are you saying it isn't?



>It's inconsistent, but it's better than the alternative:
>
>     Spam temp = new Spam();
>     eggs ~= &(temp)[0..1]

It's inconsistent, and therefore I would never have guessed in a million years that it might work. Hell, for all I know now, maybe += and + behave differently from each other. Do I have to try them all to find out? I've always done:

#    eggs.length = eggs.length + 1;
#    eggs[eggs.length-1] = new Spam();

My preference would be that /both/ ~ /and/ ~= should be overloaded, in the obvious way. For all types T:

#    T[] ~ T[]  // concatenate two arrays
#    T[] ~ T    // append a single element
#    T ~ T      // call opCat(), or compile-error

with ~= behaving identically. I don't think this leads to any ambiguity, does it?

Arcane Jill