I've noticed a few oddities in what the compiler will accept in terms of array initialisation.

A declaration like

	int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];

is valid at the module level, or as a class member.  But within a function, the compiler doesn't like it:

	variable qwert is not a static and cannot have static initializer

This seems an arbitrary restriction.  Surely it should be allowed?  The same applies to struct initialisation, but I forget if that's quite the same.

And something that doesn't seem to be allowed anywhere:

	static int[int] yuiop = [ 4: 5, 10: 6, 69: 30 ];

	Error: cannot use array to initialize int[int]

What should I use to initialise it then? :-)

Seriously, I tried to use something of this form, but couldn't, and ended up using a switch.  Surely it should be possible to initialise associative arrays just like good old-fashioned linear arrays?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:

> I've noticed a few oddities in what the compiler will accept in terms of array initialisation.
>
> A declaration like
>
>     int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];
>
> is valid at the module level, or as a class member.  But within a function, the compiler doesn't like it:
>
>     variable qwert is not a static and cannot have static initializer
>
> This seems an arbitrary restriction.  Surely it should be allowed?  The same applies to struct initialisation, but I forget if that's quite the same.
>
> And something that doesn't seem to be allowed anywhere:
>
>     static int[int] yuiop = [ 4: 5, 10: 6, 69: 30 ];
>
>     Error: cannot use array to initialize int[int]
>
> What should I use to initialise it then? :-)
>
> Seriously, I tried to use something of this form, but couldn't, and ended up using a switch.  Surely it should be possible to initialise associative arrays just like good old-fashioned linear arrays? .


You can use:
const int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];

But seriously this is another thing I'd like supported in D.

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

Stewart Gordon wrote:

[...]
> is valid at the module level, or as a class member.  But within a function,

I see this simple reason: it is put onto the stack and therefore the initialization cannot prepared at compile time. Modules and classes do not recurse. So there is a difference.

On the other hand I do not understand why it is allowed that the non static array can be initialized by a static array:

   static int[6] arr1=[1,2];
   int[6] arr2= arr1;  // no error here

[...]
> Surely it should be allowed?

Maybe, but it would hide the runtime, that is involved.

[associative array initialization]
> What should I use to initialise it then? :-)

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/14684

So long!

J Anderson wrote:

> You can use:
> const int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];
[...]

And thereby making it static.

So long!

Manfred Nowak wrote:

>J Anderson wrote:
>
>  
>
>>You can use:
>>const int[6] qwert = [ 9, 18, 28, 39, 51, 64 ];
>>    
>>
>[...]
>
>And thereby making it static.
>
>So long!
>  
>
Whoops, missed that part.


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

Manfred Nowak wrote:

> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> is valid at the module level, or as a class member.  But within a function,
> 
> I see this simple reason: it is put onto the stack and therefore the initialization cannot prepared at compile time. Modules and classes do not recurse. So there is a difference.

When instantiating a class, it clearly manages to create a copy of the initialisation data.  So why can't it do the same when instantiating a stack frame for a function?  Even C manages to do this!

> On the other hand I do not understand why it is allowed that the non static array can be initialized by a static array:
> 
>    static int[6] arr1=[1,2];
>    int[6] arr2= arr1;  // no error here 

Thanks for the workaround!

> [...]
> 
>> Surely it should be allowed?
> 
> 
> Maybe, but it would hide the runtime, that is involved.
<snip>

Pardon?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.