Max Samukha: > Your example can be rewritten like this: [...]< Thank you, it works. I have tried using result~=m; in a forward-directed for loop, but that didn't work. I think because result=m~result; creates a new array, while result~=m; tries to extend it, failing (even if with result~=m; D1 shows an error message that shows the full correct array anyway, strange).
It seems you have to use subtly functional-style code in compile-time functions too. I'll use similar solutions in various situations. ------------------ Don: >It's a bug in D1, actually. The bug was fixed in D2 but not yet in D1. As you >increase the value, D1 will just silently segfault eventually. I believe D1 >will be fixed in the next release.< So I'll be unable to loop a template 1000 times in D1 too? >It's bug 2569. Nothing fundamental.< It's not fundamental, but fixed-sized arrays seems a very good fit for compile-time functions. So it deserves an improvement. Thank you for the code and the explanations, bye, bearophile
