On Friday, June 15, 2012 09:09:48 Don Clugston wrote: > On 10/06/12 23:43, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Sunday, June 10, 2012 23:23:57 Mehrdad wrote: > >> I honestly don't see the POINT of having a "dynamic array > >> literal". > >> > >> What's the point of making the literals dynamic? > >> > >> They should all be static, and only converted to dynamic if > >> necessary from the context. > >> > >> But I really don't see the benefit of allocating them on the heap > >> just because we can... perhaps someone can enlighten me? > > > > In the vast majority of cases where an array literal is used, it's > > assigned to a dynamic array. > > I doubt that very much. I know it's not true in my code, I use array > literals almost exclusively for immutable values. > Usually if you are initializing an array, where you will modify the > elements later, you want all values to be the same. > > I argued that array literals should be immutable, just as string > literals are. But I lost.
What does immutability have to do with static vs dynamic? immutable a = [0, 1, 2, 3]; results in an immutable(int[]), not immutable(int[4]). - Jonathan M Davis
