Top 5

[Robert Fraser]

Benji Smith wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Benji Smith 
>> <dlanguage at benjismith.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> new T[x] is a brain-dead syntax that I wish Walter hadn't imported 
>>>> in the
>>>> first place.
>>> Really? I think it's very valuable.
>>>
>>> The "new T[x]" syntax lets you construct an array as an RValue. 
>>> Without that
>>> syntax, you have to declare an array before using it.
>>
>> No, what he's getting at is that "new T[x]" does not mean "allocate a
>> statically-sized array", it means "allocate a dynamically-sized
>> array".  "new T" for any T should mean "allocate a T", not "allocate
>> something that's kind of close to a T."
> 
> As long as T[3] and T[5] and T[] are considered different types, I agree 
>  with that sentiment.
> 
> But then again, I think array semantics would make a lot more sense if 
> all arrays were of type T[], regardless of their size, their location 
> (stack vs heap), and whether they're static or dynamic.
> 
> --benji

Static arrays are needed for C compatibility (in extern(C) structs), so 
they're not going anywhere.