http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8910
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Cousens <[email protected]> 2012-10-30 14:04:16 PDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > > Frankly thats a terrible alternative. Perhaps static array specialisations > > are > > in order then; assuming current implementations can't be modified to suit. > > So, you think that copying a static array is a good idea? Because that's what > on overload for a static array would do. And all that overload could do would > be to slice the static array and pass it to the normal overload (because > static > arrays are _not_ ranges and _cannot_ be, because you can't pop any of their > elements off), which would lead to the slice being completely invalid once the > function returned, meaning that the result would be completely unsafe and > invalid. So no, that wouldn't work. I do think it is a good idea, no, but that was the "clearest" solution... second to that proposed by Timon: map!(c => c[])(cs[]).join(","); But if what you say is set in stone, then there is no point taking it further. Maybe other than the fact putting something in the documentation/compiler warning so that the error message that is given is not so confusing to those coming from other languages. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
