Re: Type inference and overloaded functions

[Namespace]

On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 09:28:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:10:22 Namespace wrote:
Yeah I remember, but Kenji made a Pull Request to change this.
Regardless it would be very useful to have static array 
literals.

It should be possible to do that via a templated function which 
takes a static
array and then returns it. e.g.

auto staticLiteral(T, size_t n)(T[n] literal)
{
    return literal;
}

auto staticArray = staticLiteral([1, 2, 3, 4]);

The compiler should optimize out the heap allocation, since the 
literal is
directly converted to a static array (it might not optimize it 
now, but it
definitely should, in which case, you're effectively creating a 
static array
literal without any heap allocations).

Maybe that's more verbose than would be ideal, but it allows us 
to essentially
have static array literals without having to add anything to 
the language.

- Jonathan M Davis
Ugly. Why not {1, 2, 3} or [1, 2, 3]s. The compiler could (as 
long as necessary) rewrite this to your ugly solution.
But library solutions are always ugly and mostly bad and bug 
prone. See scoped, Typedef and destroy.