https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14682
--- Comment #11 from Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Vladimir Panteleev from comment #10) > Yes. This is not where the problem lies. The problem is not with the ternary > statement, but with the ~[] after it. And yes, this is one possible but > inconvenient syntax to replace []. OOOHHHH! oops :) Hm... looking at that, well, I don't see a huge problem, just remove the trailing []. But then again, you could be doing something generative. In either case, I agree that the the syntax is ambiguous. I don't know what should be done, quite possibly the only viable thing is to error on [], and make you specify the type you are trying to do. Otherwise, you'd silently change the meaning of the code. That sucks. I would expect probably the answer is to leave it the way it is, and require the workaround. For strings, it's pretty annoying, because nobody ever creates string literals via [], but for something like int[][], it's not so cut and dry. --
