On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:48:13 +0100, Lutger wrote: > Walter Bright wrote:
>> I tend to agree that if you try to do strings the C way in D2, you'll >> probably find it to be frustrating experience. > That is a really helpful insight. It also means string programming is a bit > different in D2 than in D1. Tell me about it! When I converted Bud to D2, it was a nightmare. It took many, many hours of edit-compile cycles to get a clean compile. Then debugging it took ages due to still trying to think in D1 string terms, which gave me lots of weird and wrong strings during run time. After a lot of trial and error, I finally groked the D2 string concept and got on top of the issue. But I wanted to have the same source support D1 and D2, which leads to a whole new set of horrors. The lessons I've learned from this exercise include ... (a) Wait until D2 is stablised. (b) Use a text macro processor if you want one source to support D1 and D2. (c) Any project that is not a simple application, might be better re-written with D2 than converted from D1. (d) D2 strings are a useful idea. However, one still needs const(char)[] and char[] types, so useful mnemonics for these is a good idea. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia skype: derek.j.parnell
