I don't seem to have a good explanation why this isn't working. All i end up
getting is 'Error: cannot implicitly convert expression .... of type
string[][] to joined[]'. I also get 'incompatible types for (("AADT") ? (16)):
'string' and 'int''. I've tried it with casts, and full array qualifiers.

 I'm using DMD 2.053.

--

 struct joined {
	string name;
	string partof;
	string preReq;
}

struct subrecord_parts {
	string name;
	int size;
	string[] notes;
	int identifyBy;
	int[] partSize;
}

joined[] attached;
subrecord_parts[] parts;

static this() {
	attached = [
		["MAST", "DATA", "TES3"],
		["ANAM","INTV", "FACT"]];

	parts = [
		["AADT", 16, ["fWeight", "iValue", "iUses", "fQuality"], -1, [4,4,4,4]],
		["AODT", 24, ["iType", "fWeight", "iValue", "iHealth", "iEnchant Points",
"iArmour"],  -1, [4,4,4,4,4,4]]];
}

-- output
test.d(20): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
([["MAST","DATA","TES3"],["ANAM","INTV","FACT"]]) of type string[][] to joined[]
Error: incompatible types for (("AADT") ? (16)): 'string' and 'int'
Error: incompatible types for (("AODT") ? (24)): 'string' and 'int'
test.d(26): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
([[(__error),(__error),(__error),(__error),(__error)],[(__error),(__error),(__error),(__error),(__error)]])
of type _error_[][] to subrecord_parts[]

On 28/05/2011 23:57, Era Scarecrow wrote:
>   I don't seem to have a good explanation why this isn't working. All i end up
> getting is 'Error: cannot implicitly convert expression .... of type
> string[][] to joined[]'. I also get 'incompatible types for (("AADT") ? (16)):
> 'string' and 'int''. I've tried it with casts, and full array qualifiers.
>
>   I'm using DMD 2.053.
>
> --
>
>   struct joined {
> 	string name;
> 	string partof;
> 	string preReq;
> }
>
> struct subrecord_parts {
> 	string name;
> 	int size;
> 	string[] notes;
> 	int identifyBy;
> 	int[] partSize;
> }
>
> joined[] attached;
> subrecord_parts[] parts;
>
> static this() {
> 	attached = [
> 		["MAST", "DATA", "TES3"],
> 		["ANAM","INTV", "FACT"]];

try attached = [joined("MAST", "DATA", "TES3"), joined("ANAM", "INTV", "FACT")];

>
> 	parts = [
> 		["AADT", 16, ["fWeight", "iValue", "iUses", "fQuality"], -1, [4,4,4,4]],
> 		["AODT", 24, ["iType", "fWeight", "iValue", "iHealth", "iEnchant Points",
> "iArmour"],  -1, [4,4,4,4,4,4]]];

Similar here, parts = [ subrecord_parts("AADT", 16, ["fWeight", "iValue", "iUses", "fQuality"], -1, [4,4,4,4]), subrecord_parts(...)]; etc.

> }
>
> -- output
> test.d(20): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
> ([["MAST","DATA","TES3"],["ANAM","INTV","FACT"]]) of type string[][] to joined[]
> Error: incompatible types for (("AADT") ? (16)): 'string' and 'int'
> Error: incompatible types for (("AODT") ? (24)): 'string' and 'int'
> test.d(26): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
> ([[(__error),(__error),(__error),(__error),(__error)],[(__error),(__error),(__error),(__error),(__error)]])
> of type _error_[][] to subrecord_parts[]


-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/

== Quote from Robert Clipsham (robert@octarineparrot.com)'s article
> On 28/05/2011 23:57, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> try attached = [joined("MAST", "DATA", "TES3"), joined("ANAM", "INTV",
> "FACT")];

> Similar here, parts = [ subrecord_parts("AADT", 16, ["fWeight",
> "iValue", "iUses", "fQuality"], -1, [4,4,4,4]), subrecord_parts(...)]; etc.

 I was certain I tried that already. But it compiles now. Perhaps I just didn't do
enough of them to confirm if it was working.

 Thanks

Era Scarecrow:

>  I don't seem to have a good explanation why this isn't working.

Also try:

struct Joined {
    string name, partof, preReq;
}

struct SubrecordParts {
    string name;
    int size;
    string[] notes;
    int identifyBy;
    int[] partSize;
}

Joined[] attached = [
    {"MAST", "DATA", "TES3"},
    {"ANAM","INTV",  "FACT"}
];

SubrecordParts[] parts = [
    {"AADT", 16, ["fWeight", "iValue", "iUses", "fQuality"],
     -1, [4,4,4,4]},
    {"AODT", 24, ["iType", "fWeight", "iValue", "iHealth",
     "iEnchant Points", "iArmour"], -1, [4,4,4,4,4,4]}
];

void main() {}

In D struct names are (usually) CamelCase.

Bye,
bearophile

== Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS@lycos.com)'s article
> Also try:
> struct Joined {
>     string name, partof, preReq;
> }
> Joined[] attached = [
>     {"MAST", "DATA", "TES3"},
>     {"ANAM","INTV",  "FACT"}
> ];

 Coming from C, this is exactly what I first tried. However since I don't recall
the {}'s being used in D it ended up using []'s, which sounds right and yet
doesn't at the same time. Like this (Which is broken).

 Joined[] attached = [
     ["MAST", "DATA", "TES3"],
     ["ANAM","INTV",  "FACT"]
 ];

 Doing a search I got the impression I had to use 'static this()'.

 Thanks bearophile. Let's hope I don't need much more help later :P

On 2011-05-29 03:56, bearophile wrote:
> Era Scarecrow:
>
>>   I don't seem to have a good explanation why this isn't working.
>
> Also try:
>
> struct Joined {
>      string name, partof, preReq;
> }
>
> struct SubrecordParts {
>      string name;
>      int size;
>      string[] notes;
>      int identifyBy;
>      int[] partSize;
> }
>
> Joined[] attached = [
>      {"MAST", "DATA", "TES3"},
>      {"ANAM","INTV",  "FACT"}
> ];
>
> SubrecordParts[] parts = [
>      {"AADT", 16, ["fWeight", "iValue", "iUses", "fQuality"],
>       -1, [4,4,4,4]},
>      {"AODT", 24, ["iType", "fWeight", "iValue", "iHealth",
>       "iEnchant Points", "iArmour"], -1, [4,4,4,4,4,4]}
> ];
>
> void main() {}
>
> In D struct names are (usually) CamelCase.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Isn't that struct initialization syntax deprecated or to be deprecated?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Jacob Carlborg:

> Isn't that struct initialization syntax deprecated or to be deprecated?

You may be right. Sometimes I read about deprecations, and then after a while I forget it because the alternative (like using the complex numbers of Phobos) is too much ugly by comparison :-)

I think we need an official deprecation list page, that includes a good rationale for each of the deprecated things.

Bye,
bearophile

On 2011-05-29 15:01, bearophile wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg:
>
>> Isn't that struct initialization syntax deprecated or to be deprecated?
>
> You may be right. Sometimes I read about deprecations, and then after a while I forget it because the alternative (like using the complex numbers of Phobos) is too much ugly by comparison :-)
>
> I think we need an official deprecation list page, that includes a good rationale for each of the deprecated things.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

The would be very helpful. There are too many messages like the one from above from me.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

C struct initialization in D is also buggy, it doesn't take into account field initializers. It's best to get used to the D way of initializing structs.

Andrej Mitrovic:

> C struct initialization in D is also buggy, it doesn't take into account field initializers. It's best to get used to the D way of initializing structs.

I'd like it to be debugged instead :-)

Bye,
bearophile