initializer for array of function literals

[bearophile]

spir:

> Also, I think D should not annoy us with the func/delegate distinction -- which is only for saving space -- and accept func defs that match the given type signature. The annoying distinction is semantically irrelevant; the signature is relevant.

A system language (that supports inline asm too, as D) must allow you to make your choices on practical (implementation) basis too.


> (*) By the way, why does D call closures "delegates"? I find this very misleading, since delegation already has some meaning in the context of programming. And well, "closure" is well established precisely in this sense. Sometimes, PL designers amaze me ;-)

In D1 there were delegates (fat pointers) but not closures. So the name distinction was correct. Later closures were added, but the name didn't change.

Bye,
bearophile