Array literals REALLY should be immutable

[Don]

Max Samukha wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:28:05 +0100, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think this is quite horrible. [1, 2, 3] looks like an array literal, 
>> but it isn't -- it's an array constructor. It doesn't look like a 
>> function call. It shouldn't be.
>>
> 
> I absolutely agree.
> 
> One note: I hope that x3 will remain valid and be indexable with a
> compile-time value.

Yes, that's the intention. See bug 2559.