On 09/11/2011 11:12 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, September 11, 2011 14:00:55 Charles Hixson wrote:
On 09/11/2011 01:25 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:02:37 +0300, Charles Hixson
<charleshi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I can't figure it out from
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/operatoroverloading.html#Binary
// I assume your data structure looks like this
class Node(Key, Data)
{
Key k;
Node!(Key, Data) left, right;
int level;
// ...
void opBinary!("in")(Key k)
{
if (level == 0) return false;
if (k< key) return k in left;
if (key< k) return k in right;
return true;
}
}
VOID?? I'm going to presume that this should have been bool.
Otherwise, thanks. That was they syntax I couldn't figure out from the
docs.
And, yeah. That's what it looks like. My find code was wrong, because
it should have referenced the node, so what I need to do is move the cod
into the node class. But it was the syntax of defining the opBinary
specialization that was hanging me up. (For some reason I have a hard
time wrapping my mind around template code.)
The "in" operator normally returns a pointer to the value that you're trying
to find (and returns null if it's not there). Making it return bool may work,
but it's going to be a problem for generic code.
-1
I think the fact that "in" for AAs returns a pointer is a mistake and
ugly in the first place and any generic code that relies on any
container to return a raw internal pointer is flawed by itself imho.
That's like making
opBinary!"*" return a type different than the types being multiplied. It's just
not how the operator is supposed to be used and could cause problems.
short a,b;
static assert(!is(typeof(a * b) == short));
