I humbly request that opIndex(int i, int value) be renamed as opIndexAssign(int i, int value), for consistency with the other assigning operator overloads. It says "The names of the overloaded operators may change" in the manual, so you've already covered yourself there.

I also request that you add the new operator opSliceAssign(int i, int j, T
value),
to overload x[i..j] = value;

Jill

Gets my vote

"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c9mkoo$1pks$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> I humbly request that opIndex(int i, int value) be renamed as opIndexAssign(int i, int value), for consistency with the other assigning operator overloads. It says "The names of the overloaded operators may change" in the manual, so
you've
> already covered yourself there.
>
> I also request that you add the new operator opSliceAssign(int i, int j, T
> value),
> to overload x[i..j] = value;
>
> Jill
>
>
>

Arcane Jill wrote:

> 
> I humbly request that opIndex(int i, int value) be renamed as opIndexAssign(int i, int value), for consistency with the other assigning operator overloads. It says "The names of the overloaded operators may change" in the manual, so you've already covered yourself there.
> 
> I also request that you add the new operator opSliceAssign(int i, int j, T
> value),
> to overload x[i..j] = value;
> 
> Jill

I agree. Especially, since opIndex(int i, int value) cannot be extended to multiple dimensions in the future.

Anyhow: I would really like to see an idea, how would generalize opSlice for more dimensions and striding capabilities.

Making
        x[i1..j1:s1,i2..j2:s2]
execute something like
        opSlice(int i1,int j1,int s1,int i2,int j2,int s2)
seems a bit messy to me. Any ideas?