AutoHotkey Community

[Ya-Cha.]

Sorry, I'm poor at English.

[Chris]

Thanks for reporting this. I think these problems have been fixed. You probably know that since arrays and other references cannot be concatenated with other items, they will be treated as blank items.

Changelog items for this topic:
Fixed the fact that an expression such as Var:=" string " would obey AutoTrim while a more complex expression would not. By design, AutoTrim should never affect expressions.

Fixed expressions so that concatenating a reference such as Array%i% always treats Array%i% as an empty string, as documented.

Thanks.

[Gehn]

Are there any plans to allow concatenation with arrays eventually? It's something I'd really like to see.
_________________
The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them.

[jonny]

I think actual arrays should be implemented before we think about making them more "official"; we have loops and such to work with them, but real arrays only exist as a concept in AutoHotkey.

[Chris]

[Gehn]

Well, a nice way to be able to clear many variables at once would be if a wildcard could be used in an assignment statement. Then, you could clean up an array using something like 'myArray[*] = '. This would also be nice for modules, because if you wanted a whole module to clean up after itself, you wouldn't have to make sure to empty each variable individually, you could just do something like 'myModule_* = '.

If you wanted to get really fancy, something like 'myArray[{1..99}] := "Hi!"' could be used to initialize 'myArray[1]' through 'myArray[99]' with 'Hi!'
_________________
The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them.

[jonny]

Those kind of things need actual arrays to work. It would be simpler to implement real arrays before implementing such things, not only to avoid redundant work but also to avoid confusion.

[Gehn]

I don't see why those things need actual arrays. I could see how implementing real arrays could possibly make the task easier, but since you can mimic the numbered behavior using a loop with already existing commands, it hardly seems necessary to have real arrays. Besides, the ideas have ramifications beyond arrays, which could also be done with normal loops if there was a way to read the variable list. In both cases, the single statement is just nicer.
_________________
The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them.

[Chris]

These ideas should come in handy when the time comes to consider more types of built-in data structures. Thanks.