> In fact I even need to take that back. In order to work correctly, the > function would have to iterate downwards. It _is_ indeed buggy, and I > should stop emitting opinions when I'm short on time... > > Andrei
Whoops, you are right: void removeAt(T)(ref T[] arr, size_t index) { foreach (i, ref item; retro(arr[1 .. index+1])) item = arr[i - 1]; arr = arr[1 .. $]; } Timon