Heywood Floyd: > First of all, I definitely think that how arrays are declared now would have > to stay just the way it is, > no matter what. I don't think stuff like that is changeable this late in a > language.
Recently I have suggested to remove the syntax: new int[20]; And allow only: new int[](20); > shared array[3] const array[5] immutable array[] (SList!(int)*) > > Sure, this is too verbose. I agree. Still, I think it's clearer. Much > clearer. Verbose, but clear. I don't know how you can write that in a Go-language-like syntax, maybe it's a bit worse. > And last, the > int[x,y] arr; > > I like it. Simple. Nice. It's nice, but unfortunately the comma syntax is present in C too, where: int[10] arr; int element = arr[x, y]; Equals to: int[10] arr; int element = arr[y]; So in D the usage of comma inside [] was recently forbidden. Keeping some kind of backward compatibility with C is something a kind of damnation (see also switch syntax, tuple syntax, etc). Bye, bearophile
