Array Lower Bounds

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Mike Marquard" <mike_marquard at hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:fk9hid$adm$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Why would there be a need for an extra memory in normall zero based 
> arrays? I would think this would only affect people who decide to use the 
> non-standard arrays to hold the lower bounds. And if bounds checking is 
> turned off I would think it wouldn't make any difference. Then again I've 
> never written a compiler so maybe I'm missing something.

You're right, this could be made to work by introducing another array type, 
a "bounded array" with explicit lower and upper bounds.  But the thing is 
with that, and with the T[new] array type that Walter wants to introduce, 
we'd have static arrays, dynamic arrays, bounded arrays, T[new] arrays, and 
associative arrays :O  That's an awfully large number of array types!