On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:59:10PM +0200, Artur Skawina wrote: > On 09/16/13 22:38, Namespace wrote: > >> [1] Obviously, not a practical short term option for the existing > >> D2 language. That's probably clear from the context, and the > >> question was meant to be rhetorical -- but it could actually be > >> done and would make sense; it's just not a change that would > >> make enough of a difference on its own; the cost would be to > >> high. > > > > Why to high? Too much compiler magic or dmd internal dependences? > > Too much (language) change for too little gain; there are many, many > much more important things that need to be fixed. Being able to have > several user-defined kinds of arrays is a nice-to-have feature, but > not one that determines whether the language is usable or not. [...]
Hmm. I find D arrays just fine the way they are, actually. (In fact, I rather *liked* the way D arrays worked as compared with, say, C/C++.) What's wrong with them? T -- Famous last words: I *think* this will work...
