ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
   ORJRecordA *end = &m_database.records[m_database.records.length];

   for(; begin != end; ++begin)
   {
        . . .

The process halts with an ArrayBoundsError on the second line above.

The workaround for this is

   ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
   ORJRecordA *end = begin + m_database.records.length;

but it's hardly what I'd call a good solution. I suppose D doesn't have all the horrible pitfalls of C & C++ which mandate that &ar[N] is the only portable (between arrays and UDTs, and between compilers) syntax. But I still think this chews. I'd rather not have the checking.

Matthew wrote:
>    ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
>    ORJRecordA *end = &m_database.records[m_database.records.length];
> 
>    for(; begin != end; ++begin)
>    {
>         . . .
> 
> The process halts with an ArrayBoundsError on the second line above.

Well, the last element should be:

  m_database.records[m_database.records.length - 1];

Lars Ivar Igesund

In article <cd2mgr$je4$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>The workaround for this is
>
>   ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];

And even that won't work if m_database.records.length == 0.

Farmer gave us the solution to this one a while back. It is:

#   ORJRecordA *begin = cast (ORJRecordA *) m_database.records;

Arcane Jill

"Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar@igesund.net> wrote in message news:cd2op0$n6m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
> >    ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
> >    ORJRecordA *end = &m_database.records[m_database.records.length];
> >
> >    for(; begin != end; ++begin)
> >    {
> >         . . .
> >
> > The process halts with an ArrayBoundsError on the second line above.
>
> Well, the last element should be:
>
>    m_database.records[m_database.records.length - 1];

Not correct. Give it another think. :)

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cd2mgr$je4$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>    ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
>    ORJRecordA *end = &m_database.records[m_database.records.length];
>
>    for(; begin != end; ++begin)
>    {
>         . . .
>
> The process halts with an ArrayBoundsError on the second line above.
>
> The workaround for this is
>
>    ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
>    ORJRecordA *end = begin + m_database.records.length;
>
> but it's hardly what I'd call a good solution. I suppose D doesn't have
all the
> horrible pitfalls of C & C++ which mandate that &ar[N] is the only
portable
> (between arrays and UDTs, and between compilers) syntax. But I still think
this
> chews. I'd rather not have the checking.

An even better workaround:
    foreach (OBJRecordA o; m_database.records)
    {
        ...
    }

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:cd2v21$14n3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cd2mgr$je4$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> >    ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
> >    ORJRecordA *end = &m_database.records[m_database.records.length];
> >
> >    for(; begin != end; ++begin)
> >    {
> >         . . .
> >
> > The process halts with an ArrayBoundsError on the second line above.
> >
> > The workaround for this is
> >
> >    ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
> >    ORJRecordA *end = begin + m_database.records.length;
> >
> > but it's hardly what I'd call a good solution. I suppose D doesn't have
> all the
> > horrible pitfalls of C & C++ which mandate that &ar[N] is the only
> portable
> > (between arrays and UDTs, and between compilers) syntax. But I still think
> this
> > chews. I'd rather not have the checking.
>
> An even better workaround:
>     foreach (OBJRecordA o; m_database.records)
>     {
>         ...
>     }

Doesn't work, since it gives me copies of the record structures, and I need their addresses.

Matthew wrote:

> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> news:cd2v21$14n3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
<snip>
>> An even better workaround:
>>    foreach (OBJRecordA o; m_database.records)
>>    {
>>        ...
>>    }
> 
> 
> Doesn't work, since it gives me copies of the record structures, and I need their
> addresses.

    foreach (inout OBJRecordA o; m_database.records)
    {
        ...
    }

surely?

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.

Matthew wrote:
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> news:cd2v21$14n3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
>>news:cd2mgr$je4$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>   ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
>>>   ORJRecordA *end = &m_database.records[m_database.records.length];
>>>
>>>   for(; begin != end; ++begin)
>>>   {
>>>        . . .
>>>
>>>The process halts with an ArrayBoundsError on the second line above.
>>>
>>>The workaround for this is
>>>
>>>   ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
>>>   ORJRecordA *end = begin + m_database.records.length;
>>>
>>>but it's hardly what I'd call a good solution. I suppose D doesn't have
>>
>>all the
>>
>>>horrible pitfalls of C & C++ which mandate that &ar[N] is the only
>>
>>portable
>>
>>>(between arrays and UDTs, and between compilers) syntax. But I still think
>>
>>this
>>
>>>chews. I'd rather not have the checking.
>>
>>An even better workaround:
>>    foreach (OBJRecordA o; m_database.records)
>>    {
>>        ...
>>    }
> 
> 
> Doesn't work, since it gives me copies of the record structures, and I need their
> addresses.
> 

My experience has been that I can always get an address(index) of an array by specifying an int counter in the foreach loop.

typedef char[] ORJRecordA;

struct database
{
  ORJRecordA[] records;
}

void main ()
{
  database m_database;
  m_database.records ~= cast(ORJRecordA)"Contents @ Address 0";
  m_database.records ~= cast(ORJRecordA)"Contents @ Address 1";

  foreach(int address, ORJRecordA rec; m_database.records)
   printf("%2d: %.*s"\n,address,cast(char[])rec);
}

Ciao,
Andrew

Matthew wrote:

> "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar@igesund.net> wrote in message
> news:cd2op0$n6m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Matthew wrote:
>>
>>>   ORJRecordA *begin = &m_database.records[0];
>>>   ORJRecordA *end = &m_database.records[m_database.records.length];
>>>
>>>   for(; begin != end; ++begin)
>>>   {
>>>        . . .
>>>
>>>The process halts with an ArrayBoundsError on the second line above.
>>
>>Well, the last element should be:
>>
>>   m_database.records[m_database.records.length - 1];
> 
> 
> Not correct. Give it another think. :)
> 

Maybe I misunderstand something, but you get an ArrayBoundsError if you do
arr[arr.length];

Lars Ivar Igesund

Lars, you are correct in your assumption that this will cause an error. You're wrong in your assumption that this is the ideal behaviour when you want to implement STL style iterators...

As Matthew said. Think again... :)