More useful fixed-size array literals

[bearophile via Digitalmars-d]

Benjamin Thaut:

> Well obviously the std.algorithm sum would also be annoted with 
> scope. Because it doesn't escape it either. I don't see the 
> problem here. And in case you really want to escape it, you 
> need to .dup it.
>
> A additional advantage of my solution is, that the compiler can 
> prove it to be @safe. Your solution does not allow that.

You can see that the contents of this answer of yours are a 
strict subset of the contents of my last post :-)

A problem with that use of "scope" to solve this problem is that 
such feature interacts with several other things (like 
ownership), so it's a complex topic, so nearly everyone is afraid 
of touching and implementing it, so nothing will happen.

This phenomenon has happened even for more contained features the 
"old" (prestate) of contract programming, for built-in D tuple 
syntax, etc. And we keep having a language with holes, that lacks 
such basic features.

This means that sometimes designing a language in a less coherent 
way (in Scott Meyers' words) is better than having a language 
that lacks certain basic features.

I hope Walter or others will figure out this topic of ownership, 
etc.

Bye,
bearophile