On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:52:05 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2014 2:09 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What in my proposal makes you think you don't have unfettered access?
The
underlying immutable(char)[] representation is accessible. In fact, you
would
have more access, since phobos functions would then work with a char[]
like it's
a proper array.
You divide the D world into two camps - those that use 'struct string',
and those that use immutable(char)[] strings.
Really? It's not that divisive. However, the situation is certainly better
than today's world of those who use 'string' and those who use
'string.representation'. Those who use string.representation would
actually get much more use out of it. Those who use string would see no
changes.
> I imagine only code that is currently UTF ignorant will break,
This also makes it a non-starter.
You're the guardian of changes to the language, clearly holding a veto on
any proposals. But this doesn't come across as very open-minded,
especially from someone who wanted to do something that would change the
fundamental treatment of strings last week.
IMO, breaking incorrect code is a good idea, and worth at least exploring.
-Steve
