Ways to initialize static arrays

[Stanislav Blinov]

Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> 
> That beats hell out of my clumsy templates :)
> 
> 
> Your templates are not clumsy, it's typically the way some other PL 
> would process lists/arrays. I used to write a lot of these. But 6 months 
> ago, CTFE got seven-leagues boots and right now it's much easier on the 
> eye to use CT functions.
>

Thanks for friendly shoulder tap :)
I think I just need to get accustomed with CTFE. I mostly work in C++, 
and it's templates (much inspired by Andrei's C++ publications as well 
as Loki, by the way) are telling on me. I constantly tend to forget 
there are so many constructs in D I can use at compile time without worry.

> 
> 
>     When I was on the way to my initial solutions I was under strong
>     impression that T[N] func() won't work. Now I see that was because I
>     didn't bother to fully understand how arrays are returned from
>     functions. I got it now, so thanks a lot again!
> 
> 
> There used to be a time, maybe not 18 months ago where returning static 
> arrays from functions was not possible, IIRC.. 

This may have something to do with my assumptions. I haven't tried D 
much since when shared was introduced (don't remember how long ago it was).

> Right now, I think you 
> can use them with no problem. Maybe someone well-versed in optimization 
> will tell us it's not a good idea, I don't know.

Well, as you've said yourself, if it works... :)

PS. I'm not sure as to where to post this, but after I tried your 
solution I've noticed one interesting (or rather strange) thing:

struct S(T,size_t N)
{
	T[N] arr;
	int foo;	// type doesn't seem to matter here,
			// taking int for clarity

	static immutable S C1   =   { initializeWith!(T,N)(0) 5 };
	// Note there is no comma after first initializer    ^
}

This actually compiles and works, though I have an impression that 
syntax error is in order. Putting in second array and attempting similar 
initialization without commas leads to one. I've only tried it with 
Windows 2.048, though I think the front end would eat this on Linux too. 
Is this valid, already known or I should report this?