On Wednesday, 6 January 2021 at 18:22:32 UTC, Nick Treleaven
wrote:
From the feedback thread:
On Wednesday, 6 January 2021 at 17:54:34 UTC, Dukc wrote:
`std.array.staticArray` can already handle most of the
problems described, and it does work in betterC - I just
tested with LDC 1.20.1 targeting WebAssembly. while there are
remaining cases (`auto fun(int[$] = [1,2,3])` isn't easy to
represent now), I suspect they are a bit too trivial to
justify a new feature.
Type inference for parameters with a default argument could be
made to work.
auto fun(auto a = [1,2,3].staticArray) {return a;}
I think that `int[$] a = [1, 2, 3]` is much more user-friendly.
```
auto a = [1,2,3].staticArray!ubyte
```
is way too complicated than simply
```
ubyte[$] a = [1,2,3];
```
... but that's my opinion.
You need to mention that this DIP will break code in this,
admittedly rare, case:
```
int[] x = something;
int y = something[0 .. staticArrFunc(cast(int[$])[1,2,3])];
```
Excellent point, but it isn't just casts, anywhere you use a
type (template instantiation) that is within an indexing
expression will have this problem.
I don't get it.
1. `y` should be a int[].
2. if staticArrFunc returns a size_t, then the problem can be
simplified as:
```
staticArrFunc(cast(int[$])[1,2,3]); // no need to cast :
staticArrFunc([1,2,3]); // already works like that (if
staticArrFunc takes a int[3])
```
I wonder if `$` should be allowed inside an expression, like
this:
```
int[$+2] a = [1,2,3]; //static array of [1,2,3,0,0]
```
Not worth it, easy to workaround.
I like this idea, even if there are workarounds.
