Static arrays inside struct and class - bug?

[NX via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Saturday, 1 August 2015 at 17:29:54 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Saturday, 1 August 2015 at 17:22:40 UTC, NX wrote:
>> I wonder if the followings are compiler bugs:
>
> No, it is by design, the idea is to keep static arrays smallish 
> so null references will be caught by the processor. (An overly 
> large static array could allow indexing it through a null 
> pointer to potentially reach another object.)
>
> The easiest workaround is to just dynamically allocate such 
> huge arrays:
>
> byte[] arr = new byte[](1024*1024*16);
> ReadProcessMemory(Proc, 0xdeadbeef, arr.ptr, arr.length, null);
>
> The arr.ptr and arr.length are the key arguments there.

Sorry, I can't see _the_ point in that. I understand that could 
be a problem if it was a "global" array but this scenery is 
completely wrong in my view. I'm already going to dynamically 
allocate it and my problem is actually a lot complex than what I 
showed there, I not even allowed to do this:

struct stuff
{
    byte[1024*1024*16] arr; // Error: index 16777216 overflow for 
static array
}
//...
stuff* data = new stuff;
ReadProcessMemory(Proc, (void*)0xA970F4, data, stuff.sizeof, 
null);

Here 
(https://gist.github.com/NightmareX1337/6408287d7823c8a4ba20) is 
the real issue if anyone want to see the real-world problem with 
long lines of code