On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 15:51:10 UTC, renoX wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 06:55:54 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:[cut]As you can see, "int[]" != "int[5]"My reaction is a bit late, but: thanks for showing again the C-style declarations are flawed, in a "Pascal style" declaration we would have 'dyn_array of int' and 'fix_array(5) of int': much more easy to see differences like this.renoX
That's not what I was trying to show, and am unsure how you came to that conclusion.
