On Saturday, 13 September 2014 at 23:21:09 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Saturday, 13 September 2014 at 22:41:39 UTC, AsmMan wrote:
D string are actullay C-strings?
No. But string *literals* are guaranteed to be 0-terminated for
easier interoperability with C code.
David
ah makes sense.
On Sunday, 14 September 2014 at 12:07:16 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Sunday, 14 September 2014 at 09:07:26 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Sunday, 14 September 2014 at 00:34:56 UTC, WhatMeWorry
wrote:
So is one form (Empty strings versus null strings) considered
better than the other? Or does it depend on the context?
For all practical purposes they should be equivalent in D
code. I suppose the distinction exists because somebody
claimed he can make sense of it. Some API may rely on
distinction between null and empty string, like XML DOM,
though I don't think such interface is very useful.
Also for some reason boolean value of a string is derived from
ptr instead of length... meh.
Which makes sense given the distinction exists, IMO. Compare
for example with Ruby, where empty strings and `0` integers
also evaluate to true, but only `nil` and `false` evaluated to
false.
That's why I don't like most of dynamic languages... type system
is a mess. I don't like even the fact one can do:
x = "abc";
f(x)
x = 10;
g(x);
and it work
