D is still carrying this bug for too long, IMHO. When will this be addressed?

(oops, I had hit the post message by mistake ¬¬')

I'm talking about the:
[code]
public static void main()
{
int[] foo=[-1,0,1];
}
[/code]
mod1.d(3) variable foo is not a static and cannot have static initializer

D is still carrying this bug for too long, IMHO. When will this be addressed?

"Id" <Id_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cgq6q4$2urq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'm talking about the:
> [code]
> public static void main()
> {
> int[] foo=[-1,0,1];
> }
> [/code]
> mod1.d(3) variable foo is not a static and cannot have static initializer
>
> D is still carrying this bug for too long, IMHO. When will this be
addressed?

It's not a bug, since it is the way the language is specified. But supporting array (and struct) literals are very good candidates for 2.0 features.

Walter wrote:

> "Id" <Id_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:cgq6q4$2urq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
<snip>
>> mod1.d(3) variable foo is not a static and cannot have static initializer
>>
>> D is still carrying this bug for too long, IMHO. When will this be addressed?
> 
> It's not a bug, since it is the way the language is specified.

Whereabouts is this arbitrary restriction specified, exactly?  And what is its advantage?

And does this mean it's a misbug that the form's allowed for non-static class members?

> But supporting array (and struct) literals are very good candidates for 2.0
> features.

This isn't exactly an array literal, just the standard array initialisation syntax wanting to work wherever it ought to, and where it works perfectly in plain old C.

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/26695
et seq....

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.