Am Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:45:20 +0100 schrieb "bearophile" <[email protected]>:
> Marco Leise: > > > But that's probably only because you didn't say: > > > > int[100][3] a2 = [1, 2, 3]; > > > > :D > > I don't understand. int[1][3] a2 = [1, 2, 3]; should obviously be rewritten int[1][3] a2 = [[1], [2], [3]]; but int[100][3] a2 = [1, 2, 3]; would likely have summoned a controversy about array initializers with some people finding it reasonable to do this. > > We should keep _some_ syntax for statically initializing an > > array > > from a single element. It's a far too common task. > > I agree. > > What I have suggested asks to write code like [[1], [2], [3]] > instead of [1, 2, 3]. > > Bye, > bearophile That creates an inconsistency: // ok, to initialize array of ten with single literal int[10] a1 = 1; // not ok, to initialize array of ten with single literal ? int[10][3] = [1, 2, 3]; -- Marco
