On Friday, 25 November 2016 at 19:16:43 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> yeah. but i'm not Andrei, i don't believe that the only compiler task is to resolve templated code. ;-) i.e. Andrei believes that everything (and more) should be moved out of compiler core and done with library templates. Andrei is genius, for sure, but he is living somewhere in future, where our PCs are not bound by memory, CPU, and other silly restrictions. ;-)
>
> tl;dr: using template for this sux.

Nice to meet you, Andrei!

Yes, in mathematics we are more servants than gentlemen (Charles Hermite).

On Friday, 25 November 2016 at 19:16:43 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Friday, 25 November 2016 at 14:27:39 UTC, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 at 18:58:55 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>>> We can define static array without counting the elements as following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> enum array_ = [1u,2,3,4];
>>>> uint[array_.length] static_array = array_;
>>>
>>> there are workarounds, of course. yet i'll take mine `uint[$] a = [1u,2,3,4];` over that quoted mess at any time, without second thought. ;-)
>>
>> I think you may write it (I mean actual D) with using some template like this:
>
> yeah. but i'm not Andrei, i don't believe that the only compiler task is to resolve templated code. ;-) i.e. Andrei believes that everything (and more) should be moved out of compiler core and done with library templates. Andrei is genius, for sure, but he is living somewhere in future, where our PCs are not bound by memory, CPU, and other silly restrictions. ;-)
>
> tl;dr: using template for this sux.

I just don't understand how is it worth to add to a language that instead of typing someArray.length you can just type $ but it is not ok to add to the language the same thing for static array size...