== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article > Now with the full legitimization of statically-sized array, the > syntactic kludge "new T[10]" is more painful than ever. > Walter and I were talking about changing the semantics of "new T[10]" to > mean "allocate a T[10] object and give me a pointer to it" and make the > syntax "new T[](10)" mean "allocate an array of 10 elements and give me > a handle to it." > I see major disruptions of existing code though. Do you guys have ideas > of a clean migration path? > Andrei
I'd recommend a simple compiler switch where new T[10] doesn't compile. You turn this on when you're porting old code. When your old code compiles with this switch on, you know it doesn't have any legacy "new T[10]" stuff in it. You can then turn this switch off and start using the new meaning of "new T[10]" if you want. Also, although I don't care about the breaking of old code (D2 is still alpha and warts should be fixed no matter how much it hurts backwards compatibility), I don't see what advantage this more verbose syntax offers. Why would anyone ever want to allocate a statically sized array on the heap? In these cases, what's wrong with just using a dynamic array?
