| |
 | Posted by bearophile_hugs@eml.cc in reply to bearophile_hugs@eml.cc | Permalink Reply |
|
bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 
| http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4119
--- Comment #2 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2010-04-25 04:41:54 PDT ---
Magic numbers are generally to avoid in serious code, it's often better to define some constants at the top of a function / struct/ class / module, and use them in the code. This also keeps all them equal if you have to use the same constant many times in the code.
But multi-precision integers can be useful in little programs too (like 20-50 lines long), where the number literals are often acceptable. A good language must be able to "scale down" too.
I agree that using a string literal is not very good, multi-precision integral literals are better, to be able to write a type-safe and clean-looking (or something similar):
import std.bigint: BigInt;
void main() {
BigInt i;
i = 100_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000LL;
}
The usage of a string is a workaround, it's not very nice, but it's easy to implement, you just need to add this to BigInt (I have added it in my copy of the BigInt):
void opAssign(T: string)(T x) {
this = BigInt(x);
}
It's less safe than the multi-precision literal because the string can contain
errors (spaces, etc), but this is true for the BigInt("...") syntax too.
It's also a little less type-safe because the BigInt variable (here 'i') can be assigned with both an integral value and a string, so you can assign by mistake it to a unrelated string. But practice with dynamic languages shows that a bit of type flexibility doesn't burn down programs, it's not a Black Death. Especially in short programs.
So I think until D gets multi-precision integral literals, the assign to string is acceptable.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
|