More magical AA semantics

[deadalnix]

On Saturday, 12 January 2013 at 21:56:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 1/12/13 7:40 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 13:30:47 monarch_dodra wrote:
>>> What about "++a[0]" when there is no a[0]? Is this something 
>>> that
>>> will throw or not?
>>
>> Personally, I think that it should, but there's probably a 
>> good chance that it
>> won't, because it's an lvalue. I don't know what will happen 
>> with that though.
>> There are a lot of bugs right now related elements being 
>> inserted into AAs
>> when they shouldn't be, so I really don't know how much 
>> relation the current
>> behavior will have with the behavior that AAs will ultimately 
>> have.
>
> ++a[0] should work.
>

Can you explain why ?