Can we drop static struct initializers?

[retard]

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:49:21 +0200, Max Samukha wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:51:40 +0000 (UTC), dsimcha <dsimcha at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>== Quote from Max Samukha (spambox at d-coding.com)'s article
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:30:48 -0800, Walter Bright
>>> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>> >Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>> >> what about foreach_reverse ?
>>> >
>>> >No love for foreach_reverse? <tear>
>>> And no mercy for opApply
>>
>>opApply **must** be kept!!!!  It's how my parallel foreach loop works. 
>>This would be **impossible** to implement with ranges.  If opApply is
>>removed now, I will fork the language over it.
> 
> I guess it is possible:
> 
> uint[] numbers = new uint[1_000];
> 
> pool.parallel_each!((size_t i){
>         numbers[i] = i;
>     })(iota(0, numbers.length));
> 
> Though I agree it's not as cute but it is faster since the delegate is
> called directly. Or did I miss something?

Sorry for asking this stupid question but why was 'iota' chosen for that 
purpose? I was kind of expecting that D2 would have these extension 
methods which would allow writing '0.to(numbers.length)' by defining 
'auto to(int begin, int end) { ... }'. I looked at wikipedia (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iota) and they seem to give credit for the Go 
programming language which seems rather weird since they probably existed 
in D long before Go was released. I've never heard of this APL being used 
anywhere.