http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=481
--- Comment #13 from thelastmamm...@gmail.com 2012-04-30 17:38:59 PDT --- (In reply to comment #11 and comment #12) I agree with the need for some syntactic sugar for static array literal, but is there any scenario where the postfix literal "auto x=[1,2,3]S" (or [1,2,3]f if you prefer) proposed in [Issue 8008] doesn't advantageously replace int[$]x=[1,2,3]? (more generally to force type T in case of ambiguity we can write [cast(T)1,2,3]S but usually not necessary with 1u,1f etc). The advantage of [1,2,3]S over [$] or the current situation being that: 1) we can directly pass a static array to a function without requiring an intermediate static array declaration (int[$]x=[1,2,3]; fun(x); becomes simply fun([1,2,3]S); 2) from my understanding, there is still an intermediate heap allocation with the current int[3]=[1,2,3]; please correct me if I'm wrong), which should be easier to avoid with [1,2,3]S). (As an optional bonus, would it also be easy to implement implicit casts with [...]S ? eg void fun(in double[3] x){...} fun([1,2,3]S); //should do implicit cast to double[3]; //the implicit casts should follow the same rules as for numeric values. ) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------