On 06/10/2012 12:05 AM, timotheecour wrote:
(apologies for cross-posting here, I feel this is a better place to ask
than in my original post where I only received 1 answer that seemed in
favor of this:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8008 which was 2 months ago).
Please see to the original post above to see the proposal for the new
syntax for static array litterals
(but please reply here).
Running some simple tests show that this is not just cosmetics and ease
of use but would also lead to significantly reduced overhead when
dealing with static array litterals vs raw C array litterals, as
currently D static array litterals perform costly heap allocation as
intermediate step (as shown in the resulting assembly).
...
D static array literals don't perform a costly heap allocation. It is
simply a bug in the implementation. This is not a compelling reason to
add new syntax.
