David Nadlinger:

> I'd argue it does with 1024… ;)

Right, I am sorry :-)

Bye,
bearophile

On 8/1/11, Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm barely following this thread, but why not:
>
> ===
> import std.random;
> void main() {
>     int[] arr;
>     foreach(i; 1 .. 100)
>          arr ~= uniform(0, 1024);
> }
> ===
>
> ?
>

Ah but nearly every initialization can be converted to a foreach loop. But I'm trying to avoid that and use a simple expression instead. :)

On 01.08.2011 23:43, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Actually I don't really need *uniform* distribution, it's just that
> when porting C code to D I didn't find any obvious random()/rnd()
> functions, and uniform seemed to be the closest thing without having
> to mess around with a bunch of randomization parameters which I don't
> care about.
>
> I don't see how we can claim D to be an elegant language with this mess:
> array(map!"a % 1024"(take(rndGen(), 1024)))
>
> That's just damn *horrible*.

Dunno maybe it's only me, but some years ago when I used C++98 & STL extensively I would find this line a very simple and clean solution. Now time is changing and so on...
A thought - would amap as a shorthand for array(map... float your boat? One pair of parens off.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

> On 01.08.2011 23:43, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > Actually I don't really need *uniform* distribution, it's just that when porting C code to D I didn't find any obvious random()/rnd() functions, and uniform seemed to be the closest thing without having to mess around with a bunch of randomization parameters which I don't care about.
> > 
> > I don't see how we can claim D to be an elegant language with this mess:
> > array(map!"a % 1024"(take(rndGen(), 1024)))
> > 
> > That's just damn *horrible*.
> 
> Dunno maybe it's only me, but some years ago when I used C++98 & STL
> extensively I would find this line a very simple and clean solution. Now
> time is changing and so on...
> A thought - would amap as a shorthand for array(map... float your boat?
> One pair of parens off.

Yeah. I confess that I don't see much ugly in that solution. It wouldn't hurt my feelings any to have a cleaner solution, but

array(map!"a % 1024"(take(rndGen(), 1024)));

seems fine to me. But maybe I'm just too used to the STL and std.algorithm. Regardless, it's _way_ cleaner than what you can achieve in C++98 trying to do the same thing.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:43:13 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually I don't really need *uniform* distribution, it's just that
> when porting C code to D I didn't find any obvious random()/rnd()
> functions, and uniform seemed to be the closest thing without having
> to mess around with a bunch of randomization parameters which I don't
> care about.
>
> I don't see how we can claim D to be an elegant language with this mess:
> array(map!"a % 1024"(take(rndGen(), 1024)))
>
> That's just damn *horrible*.

If we ever get UFCS that'd be rndGen().take(1024).map!"a % 1024"().array()

Which is a lot better :--)

Without UFCS, well, how would you want it to look? How does it look in other languages?

On 8/2/11, Pelle <pelle.mansson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Without UFCS, well, how would you want it to look?

Maybe..

auto max = 1024;
auto len = 1024;

arr = rndRange(max)[0..len];

IOW, using the slice operator instead of a call to array().

On 02.08.2011 16:08, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 8/2/11, Pelle<pelle.mansson@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Without UFCS, well, how would you want it to look?
> Maybe..
>
> auto max = 1024;
> auto len = 1024;
>
> arr = rndRange(max)[0..len];
>
> IOW, using the slice operator instead of a call to array().
It could be done , but IMO a lot of generic code would totally expect slice to
1. return the same type as the range itself (or 100% compatible)
2. most of the time not to allocate

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

Woops you're right about the range type being returned.

I guess this is the next best thing:

arr = array(rndRange(max, len));

Andrej Mitrovic:

> Maybe..
> 
> auto max = 1024;
> auto len = 1024;
> 
> arr = rndRange(max)[0..len];

In my opinion that's not general enough for Phobos, see the N dimensional table() I have explained here:
auto arr = table!q{ uniform(0, 1024) }(1024);

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.learn&article_id=28543

Bye,
bearophile