On Thursday, May 30, 2013 16:42:43 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > Just my opinion. I'm perfectly fine with leaving things the way they are, > or with removing the article if it's too controversial.
I don't think that the article is a whole is particular controversal - just its use of terminology. And overall, it's a fantastic article. So, it would be far preferable to adjust its terminology than to get rid of it. And I have no problem with the article pointing out that D's use of the term "dynamic array" differs from how the term might be typically used elsewhere (particularly if that will help people understand D arrays better), but I do think that the article should use terminology which matches the spec - particularly since it's on dlang.org. - Jonathan M Davis
