Solving the impossible?

[vit]

On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 19:56:31 UTC, Everlast wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 22:01:45 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>> [...]
>
> One of the things that makes a good language is it's internal 
> syntactic consistency. This makes learning a language easier 
> and also makes remembering it easier. Determinism is a very 
> useful tool as is abstraction consistency. To say "Just except 
> D the way it is" is only because of necessity since that is the 
> way D is, not because it is correct. (There are a lot of 
> incorrect things in the world such as me "learning" D... since 
> I've been programming in D on and off for 10 years, I just 
> never used a specific type for variadics since I've always use 
> a variadic type parameter)
>
> To justify that a poor design choice is necessary is precisely 
> why the poor design choice exists in the first place. These are 
> blemishes on the language not proper design choices.  For 
> example, it is necessary for me to pay taxes, but it does not 
> mean that taxes are necessary.

Actual syntax work with more then slices...:

import std.algorithm : equal;

void foo(size_t N)(int[N] args...){
     assert(args[].equal([1, 2, 3, 4, 5]));

}

void main(){
     foo(1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
}