Array void init

[eles]

On Friday, 26 April 2013 at 15:59:32 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
> On Friday, 26 April 2013 at 15:45:27 UTC, eles wrote:
>> which reminds me about the proposal to allow declaration of 
>> static arrays with
>> double[$] foo = [1.0, 2.0, void, 3.0, 3.5, void, void, void];
>
> Seems nice.
>
>> double[4] foo = [1.0, 2.0];
>> is accepted, which is a bit strange (I think the compiler 
>> should give at least a warning if too many elements are 
>> reserved for an array).
>
> I just read that as "the other are NaN/.init initialized", 
> which seems reasonable. The dollar notation is better than the 
> warning here, to say that the array initializer is the 
> authoritative source of the array length.

I thought about it. However, it is not very nice. What if 
somebody types 1024 instead of 024 for an array length? The error 
could pass through the compiler and crash an out of memory after 
years of use.

OTOH, I would like to be able to specify a partial initialization 
of the first elements of an array, then a default/imposed value 
for the remaining elements. So, what about:

double[4] foo = [1.0, 2.0 .. ]; //initializes last 3 elements to 
2.0

In this case, obviously, one cannot write

double[$] foo = [1.0, 2.0 .. ]; //the compiler cannot deduce 
length of static array

Speaking about the proposal of using "$" in declaring static 
arrays whose elements the compiler is able to count (just like in 
the double[$] foo = [1.0, 2.0];) I wonder sometimes why so much 
reluctance to implement those simple changes (and almost 
obvious), while other more dramatic changes are sometimes taken 
in a rush. Do not ask for examples, it is a feeling mainly 
derived from the discussions about those @property-ies. Speaking 
about, what decision was reached to get rid of the compiler 
-property flag which is a monster per se? (changes the way the 
language is defined).