Is [] mandatory for array operations?

[Robert Jacques]

On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:52:46 -0400, Robert Jacques <sandford at jhu.edu>  
wrote:
> Given that y[] is really syntactic sugar y[0..$], one option would be to  
> bite the bullet an make [] a dedicated array op/vectorize operator. This  
> would pave the way for using array ops with user defined types (e.g.  
> matrices and ranges). However, the downside to this is that user types  
> would loose the x[] = y; and y[] operator overloads. Classes can use x[]  
> = y to mean copy assignment (since x=y is a ref assignment). Collections  
> may use y[] as sugar for a .all() method/property. Are there other use  
> cases?

On second thought, array ops work with any type of slice: a[0..2] =  
b[0..2] + c[]; so this is a no go.