http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8910



--- Comment #13 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 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: -------

Reply via email to