Now that we have std::array what uses are left for C-style arrays?

Unless I've missed something (I've not followed the most recent changes in the standard too closely), most of the uses of C style arrays still remain. std::array does allow static initialization, but it still won't count the initializers for you. And since the only real use of C style arrays before std::array was for statically initialized tablesalong the lines of:

MyStruct const table[] ={    { something1, otherthing1 },    //  ...};

using the usual begin and end template functions (adopted inC++11) to iterate over them. Without ever mentionning the size, which the compiler determines from the number of initializers.

EDIT: Another thing I forgot: string literals are still C style arrays; i.e. with type char[]. I don't think that anyone would exclude using string literals just because we have std::array.

No. To, uh, put it bluntly. And in 30 characters.

Of course, you need C arrays to implement std::array, but that's not really a reason that a user would ever want C arrays. In addition, no, std::array is not less performant than a C array, and has an option for a bounds-checked access. And finally, it is completely reasonable for any C++ program to depend on the Standard library- that's kind of the point of it being Standard- and if you don't have access to a Standard library, then your compiler is non-conformant and the question is tagged "C++", not "C++ and those not-C++ things that miss out half the specification because they felt it inappropriate.".

Seems like using multi-dimensional arrays is easier with C arrays than std::array. For instance,

char c_arr[5][6][7];

as opposed to

std::array<std::array<std::array<char, 7>, 6>, 5> cpp_arr;

Also due to the automatic decay property of C arrays, c_arr[i] in the above example will decay to a pointer and you just need to pass the remaining dimensions as two more parameters. My point is it c_arr is not expensive to copy. However, cpp_arr[i] will be very costly to copy.