Next topic

[Josh @ Dreamland]

I doubt anyone would disagree that ENIGMA needs arrays. What I'm proposing is that rather than inherit array syntax from C++, we take a page out of the JavaScript playbook and denote them with [].

I want to use [] for a couple reasons. First, of course, is that [1, 2, 3][1] looks neater than {1,2,3}[1]. That was a joke; I don't give a shit about that. What I want to allow is this sort of syntax:

Code (EDL) Select Expand


[x, y] = [y, x] // Switches the values of x and y
[x, y] = get_some_coordinates(); // Fetches a length-2 array of coordinates, assign


Using {} for arrays, {x,y} would be ambiguous; it could be a new scope which uses x and y, or it could be our assignment array. There would be next to no way to distinguish the two, so it's out of the question if we want the assignment array.

As for the dynamics, when compiling to C, this is what it would look like:
In the [a,b,c]=array_func() case:

Code (cpp) Select Expand


{
  Array tmp = array_func(); // This is copied verbatim
  switch (tmp.length) { default: // Array size is size_t; must be >= 0
    case 3: c = tmp[3]; // Waterfall
    case 2: b = tmp[2];
    case 1: a = tmp[1];
    case 0: ;
  }
}


In the [a,b,c] = scalar_func() special case:

Code (cpp) Select Expand


  c = b = a = scalar_func();


As for building an array, that's easy. Old ENIGMA can do that. [expression1, expression2, expression3] simply becomes this:
[snip=cpp](Array(3).put(0,expression1).put(1,expression2).put(2,expression3))[/snip]

Where [snip]Array(int N)[/snip] reserves N variants, and [snip]Array& Array::put(int, variant)[/snip] is the same as [snip]Array::operator[](int)::operator=(variant)[/snip].

[polygone]

What about this though

Code (edl) Select Expand

a = b
[x, y] = get_some_coordinates();

[Josh @ Dreamland]

This is an EDL feature; the expectation is that the user will distinguish those two with the use of a semicolon. However, if you have an idea to eliminate that, let's hear it.

[luiscubal]

Agree with

Code (edl) Select Expand


[x, y] = array_func();


Disagree with

Code (edl) Select Expand


[x, y] = scalar_func();


[Josh @ Dreamland]

What would you have [] = scalar do?

[IsmAvatar]

Error/warn :-p
Seriously, though, what would the user expect [a,b] = 3; to do when a = b = 3 is just as easy to write.
Also, what happens with:
[a,b,c] = [1,2];

[TheExDeus]

This is also cool, but what if I only want to set one of the variables? Like have:

Code Select Expand

[0, y] = get_some_coordinates();That wouldn't work would it?

[Josh @ Dreamland]

No, that would throw a syntax error to the tune of "Assignment array elements must be variables."

[TheExDeus]

So would there be a possibility to return only N'th result? From your previous example I see that this would probably work:

Code Select Expand

[x] = get_some_coordinates();As that would just return the first variable to x, but if I wanted the second one?

[Josh @ Dreamland]

[snip=edl]y = get_some_coordinates()[2][/snip].
But I see the point you're trying to make. I guess we can allow using zero or maybe the null keyword to indicate that you don't want the field; otherwise, you'd do something like this:

Code (edl) Select Expand


int discard;
[discard,y] = get_some_coordinates();


[TheExDeus]

Code Select Expand

y = get_some_coordinates()[2]Also works. I just didn't think of that for some reason (though I do it all the time in C++ with OpenCV).

[luiscubal]

Here's my proposal.

1. If function returns a scalar, forbid [] syntax. Completely. It's worthless anyway.
2. If function returns Array, allow [] syntax but force the number of parameters to match.
3. If function returns Array but you don't want to use all parameters, use

Code (edl) Select Expand


[a, b, c, ...] = func();

Still, the array would be forced to have at least 3 elements.
4. If this is *still* not acceptable, you could have this:

Code (edl) Select Expand


[a, b?] = func();

or

Code (edl) Select Expand


[a, b=2]=func();

That code would work for func() returning both 1 or 2 parameters. It'd still be an error for 0 or more than 2 parameters (for 0, use a?. For more than 2, add the "...")

Code (edl) Select Expand


[a?, b?, ...] = func();

This is inspired by function arguments syntax.

As a final note, after an optional variable, all following variables must be optional. So this would still be an error:

Code (edl) Select Expand


[a?, b] = func(); //ERROR!


As an extra note, __unused could be used for worthless variables:

Code (edl) Select Expand


[__unused, x, __unused, __unused?, y?] = func();
cout << __unused << endl; //ERROR: __unused is not defined


If you dislike this syntax, this could also be used (although it might be more error-prone):

Code (edl) Select Expand


[, x, , ?, y?] = func();


[Josh @ Dreamland]

I don't want to use ?, since ? is ternary. [snip=EDL](boolean_expression ? x : y) = 10;[/snip] is already valid EDL. It will remain so in the arrays, I imagine. I do like your [snip]...[/snip] to denote that the array may be larger. However, I like HaRRi's 0 idea better than __unused.

Perhaps as a prefix, ? could denote optionality.
[snip=EDL][0, x, y, ?z] = get_wxyz();[/snip]

[luiscubal]

Prefix, postfix. I really don't care. It was just a proposal.

For further headaches:

Code (edl) Select Expand


int& x = ...;
int& y = ...;
[ x > 2 ? x : y] = func();


(Basically, what if instead of just variables it actually allowed any reference? Non-references would still be forbidden)

[Josh @ Dreamland]

I was just going on about how that'd be fine. All I really need is to make sure JDI includes the & in variable types it coerces, then I can ask JDI for the type of ENIGMA's AST.