• CLXX (12/12) Feb 28 2009 dmd2.025, Windows
• Daniel Keep (8/25) Feb 28 2009 I... wait, what?
• torhu (3/27) Feb 28 2009 Hehe, someone had to little coffee today. 'in' implies const, and
• Daniel Keep (4/37) Feb 28 2009 *stares at it*
• Andrei Alexandrescu (4/21) Feb 28 2009 Yah, many of them are already changed in my tree. Phobos will have to

CLXX <kk_tnr hotmail.com> writes:

dmd2.025, Windows

Some standard functions receive 'string' arguments.
This is not a bug, but not good specs.

void[] read( in string name );
void[] write( in string name, const void[] buffer );
...

They should be

void[] read( in char[] name );
void[] write( in char[] name, const void[] buffer );
...

Former cannot receive char[]-arguments, and latter can.
This change has backward compatibility.

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

CLXX wrote:
 dmd2.025, Windows
 
 Some standard functions receive 'string' arguments.
 This is not a bug, but not good specs.
 
 void[] read( in string name );
 void[] write( in string name, const void[] buffer );
 ....
 
 They should be
 
 void[] read( in char[] name );
 void[] write( in char[] name, const void[] buffer );
 ....
 
 Former cannot receive char[]-arguments, and latter can.
 This change has backward compatibility.

I... wait, what?

*blinks*

That change will just mean that the functions can't take string
arguments, and if you WANT to pass a string, you have to heap-allocate a
new one.

Why don't you just pass a string?

  -- Daniel

torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:

On 28.02.2009 15:47, Daniel Keep wrote:
 CLXX wrote:
  dmd2.025, Windows

  Some standard functions receive 'string' arguments.
  This is not a bug, but not good specs.

  void[] read( in string name );
  void[] write( in string name, const void[] buffer );
  ....

  They should be

  void[] read( in char[] name );
  void[] write( in char[] name, const void[] buffer );
  ....

  Former cannot receive char[]-arguments, and latter can.
  This change has backward compatibility.

 I... wait, what?

 *blinks*

 That change will just mean that the functions can't take string
 arguments, and if you WANT to pass a string, you have to heap-allocate a
 new one.

 Why don't you just pass a string?

Hehe, someone had to little coffee today.  'in' implies const, and 
invariant is implicitly convertible to const. So Mr. 'CLXX' is right. :P

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

torhu wrote:
 On 28.02.2009 15:47, Daniel Keep wrote:
 CLXX wrote:
  dmd2.025, Windows

  Some standard functions receive 'string' arguments.
  This is not a bug, but not good specs.

  void[] read( in string name );
  void[] write( in string name, const void[] buffer );
  ....

  They should be

  void[] read( in char[] name );
  void[] write( in char[] name, const void[] buffer );
  ....

  Former cannot receive char[]-arguments, and latter can.
  This change has backward compatibility.

 I... wait, what?

 *blinks*

 That change will just mean that the functions can't take string
 arguments, and if you WANT to pass a string, you have to heap-allocate a
 new one.

 Why don't you just pass a string?

 
 Hehe, someone had to little coffee today.  'in' implies const, and
 invariant is implicitly convertible to const. So Mr. 'CLXX' is right. :P

*stares at it*

Well, that's what I get for posting at 2 AM.

  -- Daniel

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

CLXX wrote:
 dmd2.025, Windows
 
 Some standard functions receive 'string' arguments.
 This is not a bug, but not good specs.
 
 void[] read( in string name );
 void[] write( in string name, const void[] buffer );
 ...
 
 They should be
 
 void[] read( in char[] name );
 void[] write( in char[] name, const void[] buffer );
 ...
 
 Former cannot receive char[]-arguments, and latter can.
 This change has backward compatibility.

Yah, many of them are already changed in my tree. Phobos will have to 
sit this release out, though.

Andrei