static arrays becoming value types

[Jason House]

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Currently, static arrays are (as in C) half-value types and 
> half-reference types. This tends to cause a series of weird problems and 
> special cases in the language semantics, such as functions not being 
> able to return static arrays, and out parameters not being possible to 
> be static arrays.
> 
> Andrei and I agonized over this for some time, and eventually came to 
> the conclusion that static arrays should become value types. I.e.,
> 
>    T[3]
> 
> should behave much as if it were:
> 
>    struct ??
>    {
>       T[3];
>    }
> 
> Then it can be returned from a function. In particular,
> 
>    void foo(T[3] a)
> 
> is currently done (as in C) by passing a pointer to the array, and then 
> with a bit of compiler magic 'a' is rewritten as (*a)[3]. Making this 
> change would mean that the entire array would be pushed onto the 
> parameter stack, i.e. a copy of the array, rather than a reference to it.
> 
> Making this change would clean up the internal behavior of types. 
> They'll be more orthogonal and consistent, and templates will work better.
> 
> The previous behavior for function parameters can be retained by making 
> it a ref parameter:
> 
>     void foo(ref T[3] a)

I've never heard the argument why they should be value types. Can you or Andrei explain why it makes more sense as value types?