• TheManWithNoName (7/7) Oct 27 2012 I don't mean to be splitting hairs here, well maybe I do, but
• H. S. Teoh (16/24) Oct 27 2012 Huh?

"TheManWithNoName" <kheaser eapl.org> writes:

I don't mean to be splitting hairs here, well maybe I do, but

D clearly makes the string type to be immutable(char)[].  That's 
fine, but the std.string is all about char[] or mutable character 
arrays.

So now, whenever I see a reference to the string, I have to ask 
myself: do they mean the formal definition of string, 
immutable(char)[], or the colloquial version, char[].

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:53:56PM +0200, TheManWithNoName wrote:
 I don't mean to be splitting hairs here, well maybe I do, but
 
 D clearly makes the string type to be immutable(char)[].  That's
 fine, but the std.string is all about char[] or mutable character
 arrays.

Huh?

I think you're confusing const(char)[] for char[]. In D, both T[] and
immutable(T)[] for any type T can be implicitly converted to const(T)[].
The reason many of the functions in std.string take const(T)[] is
because they work with *both* string and char[].

There is also a bunch of template functions that take C[] for any
character type C. This means it can take char[], const(char)[], string,
wchar[], wstring, dchar[], dstring, etc.. These are all generic
functions. Most of these functions don't require mutable strings at all.


 So now, whenever I see a reference to the string, I have to ask
 myself: do they mean the formal definition of string,
 immutable(char)[], or the colloquial version, char[].

[...]

There is no colloquial version of string, a string in D is always
immutable(char)[]. char[] is called a character array.


T

-- 
It is widely believed that reinventing the wheel is a waste of time; but I
disagree: without wheel reinventers, we would be still be stuck with wooden
horse-cart wheels.