On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:49:30 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 1/28/14 3:28 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:19:54 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Walter doesn't like writing libraries so when he first defined Phobos'
string support he simply took the string functions in Python and Ruby
and implemented them. That didn't work well at all, in spite of the
functions having the same names and semantics.
What specifically didn't work? All I can recall are UTF and slicing
issues, some of which remain with us today.
Problem is what we had was a crappy strings API because it used none of
D's inherent advantages. What we have now is much better.
Sure, but it would be better still if the commonly expected names for
routines were present.. is all I'm saying. I am certainly not suggesting
we go back to a bad API, I am just saying there are some functions people
expect to see, and they're not there, and that is frustrating; perhaps
enough to put someone off.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
