Array literals

[bearophile]

ore-sama:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367#c2

Yes, sorry, I was a little nervous for an unrelated thing :-)


Comment #3 From Jarrett Billingsley  2008-09-20:
>Amen to dropping the fixed-sizedness of string literals.  I suppose determining the type based on the smallest type that can represent the data without using multibyte encodings is reasonable enough, and you're right, it fits in with the way it works for ints.<

My complaint/proposal regards all array literals, to keep the strings more aligned with all the other arrays. I think all array/string literals have to define dynamic arrays by default, and static arrays if the programmer explicitly states so, with some short and handy syntax.
I think this is 20-40 times more important than inventing a new syntax that replaces !()

Bye,
bearophile