http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703
--- Comment #3 from David Simcha <dsim...@yahoo.com> 2010-08-21 12:51:30 PDT --- I think, then, that we should just get rid of the static initialization of static arrays thing. I've been using D on a daily basis for ~2.5 years and I didn't know it existed. I've never actually seen it used in any D code anywhere. IIRC it's not mentioned in TDPL, and it certainly creates a horrible ambiguity. If this feature is really that important, maybe it could be moved to a library and handled with CTFE. Here's a quick and dirty example of such a function, which could be tested, fleshed out, etc. auto staticInitializeStaticArray(T...)(T args) { static assert(args.length % 2 == 0); T[1][T.length / 2] ret; foreach(ti, arrIndex; args) { if(ti % 2 == 1) { continue; } ret[arrIndex] = args[ti + 1]; } return ret; } -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------