Should we remove int[$] before 2.067?

[an via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 05:07:35 UTC, Kapps wrote:
> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 19:07:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
>>
>> The interesting thing is because of the tight overloading 
>> rules, "s" will only match statically-sized arrays. So it's 
>> okay to simply expose it as std.array.s without fear it might 
>> clash with other uses of the "s" symbol. Awesome. -- Andrei
>
> With a library method of [1, 2, 3].s, or syntax of [1, 2, 3]s, 
> would this proposed $ syntax really provide any benefit? Since 
> you could already use 'auto a = [1, 2, 3]' for size inference,

Did you mean 'auto a = [1, 2, 3].s'?

auto    a = [1, 2, 3]; // int[]
auto[$] b = [1, 2, 3]; // int[3]

> I don't really see a strong benefit over 'int[$] a = [1, 2, 3]' 
> with the exception that you could specify the type in the 
> latter.
>
> More so, I think having .s is a much better alternative if 
> there's no substantial advantage to $, because it can also be 
> used as an expression for purposes such as making function 
> calls with a static array.
>
> Example:
> auto foo = Variant([1, 2, 3].s)
> rather than
> auto foo = Variant(cast(int[$])[1, 2, 3])