Should we remove int[$] before 2.067?

[eles via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 07:19:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 1/30/15 11:00 PM, eles wrote:
>> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 18:08:15 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
>> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 14:47:22 UT
>>
>>> We don't want the situation of C++ where people only use 80% 
>>> of it's
>>> features and that 80% is different for everyone. I've 
>>> recently been
>>> writing some Go code and it's become clear to me just how big 
>>> of a
>>> language D really is.
>>
>> You miss one point here. C++  is not despised for being 
>> complete, but
>> for being ugly. Is not features in it that are too many, but 
>> the quirks.
>>
>> Add more quirks to D instead of a lean syntax. This way you 
>> will end
>> with C++.
>>
>> You guys should watch again The last thing D needs. Library 
>> syntax shows
>> 'it can be done' but *as a quirk*
>>
>> Frankly, you can already do *everything* just by typing 'asm', 
>> isn't?
>> You really want to stay there?
>>
>> Everytime I follow the process managemnt and decision in D, it 
>> looks to
>> me like IndburIII-esque:
>>
>> 'To him, a stilted geometric love of arrangement was "system," 
>> an
>> indefatigable and feverish interest in the pettiest facets of 
>> day-to-day
>> bureaucracy was "industry," indecision when right was 
>> "caution," and
>> blind stubbornness when wrong, "determination."'
>>
>> It is one thing to thrieve for caution and determination. But 
>> another
>> thing to get those in the right way.
>>
>> Right now, guys, you are going on the wrong road. Being 
>> conservative
>> when wrong and revolutionary when wrong too.
>
> How is anything about specifying the length of a constant array 
> revolutionary?
>
>> Certainly, you end up by being both conservative and 
>> revolutionary. But,
>> neither when it is needed.
>>
>> I really support the syntax. Because makes one quirk less.
>
> Special syntax for a niche case instead of using a function... 
> looks one quirk more, not less.
>

Really? What about the niceness of uniformity in declaration?

Imagine that you declare first a dynamic array, then you would 
like it to be static.

Suddenly you have to quirk.

You defend inconsistency.