http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8910
--- Comment #13 from [email protected] 2012-10-30 14:12:53 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. ... auto rangeFunction(T)(ref T range) if(isStaticArray!T && ...){ return rangeFunction(range[]); } I do not think implicitly slicing static arrays for all range-based functions is really worth the trouble. It would silence all those fruitless discussions though. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
