Max Samukha wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:28:05 +0100, Don <[email protected]> wrote:I think this is quite horrible. [1, 2, 3] looks like an array literal, but it isn't -- it's an array constructor. It doesn't look like a function call. It shouldn't be.I absolutely agree. One note: I hope that x3 will remain valid and be indexable with a compile-time value.
Yes, that's the intention. See bug 2559.
