On Friday, 7 July 2017 at 00:58:57 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Friday, 7 July 2017 at 00:39:32 UTC, Meta wrote:
(https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/3615)
Of course this could also get confusing pretty fast. I wish we
at least had the `int[$]` syntax but it's not a huge loss.
Thanks for posting the link. Made for interesting reading.
This was another link on the same topic:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/bewroetnschakoqjz...@forum.dlang.org
Yeah, it's one of those features that seemed very nice and I, at
the very least, was disappointed that it didn't get in (of course
Bearophile was as well). I don't really agree with Andrei's
reason for vetoing the feature (the part about adding this
feature being a slippery slope, not the power to complexity
ratio), but looking back on it there are a few peculiarities with
this syntax. For example, `immutable[] i = [0]` has the type
`immutable(int)[]`, but to get `immutable(int[])` you have to do
`immutable i = [0]`. I'd say that a beginner looking at this code
would assume the opposite (although it's a very easy rule to
learn). It's one of the problems D has with this syntax as
opposed to C++, which has the ability to declare head-const
arrays/pointers.
