Array literals' default type

[grauzone]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> immutable(double)[] - The compiler stores a copy of this array somewhere 
> in ROM and initializes the stack variable with the immutable pointer to 
> the data.


And what about

void foo(int x) {
    auto a = [1, x, 2];

?

Should it create an immutable array on the heap? And if the user happens 
to need a mutable one, he has to dup it? (Causing one unnecessary memory 
allocation.) (Wait, is .dup even enough to get a mutable array, or will 
it return just another immutable one?)

Anyway, returning an array allocated on the stack is unsafe. If someone 
wants it, he should write:

int[3] a = [1, x, 2];

Now the only problem is, that right now, array initializers only work 
for static variables. Which is very stupid. Currently, this code creates 
an array literal, and copies it into the static array a (which is very 
very stupid), and if you add a "static" in front of the variable a, the 
thing beyond "=" is interpreted as array initializer (and x must be const).

Ideally, the line of code above would not cause a heap allocation.