Empty non-null Associative Arrays should be trivial or even the default.

[Rekel]

Feel free to disregard my previous post seems valid, as I seem to 
have misunderstood the meaning of AA's being null. (Wish I'd 
triple checked, it was an incorrect use of ) Sorry for wasting 
anyone's time...

How can all properties still be callable with a null-AA? This 
surprises me.

Also a small sidequestion; how come remove is part of AA's 
definition while the removal of items from dynamic lists is part 
of the library instead?

---
https://tenor.com/view/justin-timberlake-jt-bad-teacher-stupid-ifeel-stupid-gif-3547095

For those interested, my range error was caused by the following 
mistake;
```d
int[][int] aa;

void addElement(int element) {
	aa[0] ~= element;
}

void main(string[] args) { // Works
	addElement(0);
	aa[0].writeln();
}

void main(string[] args) { // Does not work
	aa[0].writeln();
}
```

Assumptions thus on present elements, although the first main 
does not allude to its absence. In particular, why can one `~=` 
when aa[0] does not exist?
Likewise, why is this valid:?

```d
int[] a;
assert(a is null); // Strange to me this works as many have said 
dynamic arrays are structs.
a ~= 1;

writeln(a);
writeln([] ~ 1);
// But not writeln(null ~ 1);
```

---

Again sorry for my previous mistake. I'll be more careful in the 
future.
- Paul