https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15932
--- Comment #5 from hst...@qfbox.info --- I don't see what's so hard about adding `[]` to a static array before passing it to Phobos. Even in generic code where you could argue that the incoming type could be either static or dynamic array, you can still write `[]` and it would still work (a slice of a dynamic array is still the same dynamic array, there is no problem there). This is what Andrei complained about, we bend over backwards to support use cases that weren't intended to be supported, and pretty soon we end up with a ridiculous amount of cruft that didn't even need to be there in the first place. Asking the user to write 2 extra characters is a much simpler and better solution than introducing silent ways to shoot themselves in the foot because they didn't realize what was happening under the hood. I have been bitten by this specific issue (implicit conversion of static array to dynamic) more than once, the headache in debugging the issue -- because it's implicit and therefore hard to find -- is so not worth the non-existent "cost" of writing two extra characters. I would have much preferred that the compiler refused to compile the code to bring my attention to the fact that I'm dealing with a static array, than to silently accept static arrays with unexpected semantics that lead to bugs down the road. --
