I am a little concerned about the discussion here
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3394#discussion_r31953154)
pertaining to the usage (or abuse) of .stringof.
[1]
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3394#discussion_r31953154
JC: I've been told that stringof shouldn't be used for anything
other than debugging. Is there something else that can be used?
There's no guarantee that the result is stable?
AA: there was no other way I could do it
ML: A lot of the time there really is no other way. A large
amount of code in this vein that I've written invariably ends up
needing stringof as well. Maybe we should provide stronger
guarantees about what stringof produces.
AA: Well it'll break the unittests that's for sure :). The
problem here is with the function parameter lists. There is no
way to express storage classes such as ref, out, lazy as parts of
types.
I also think .stringof for types should offer better guarantees.
The simplest one is, for non-Voldemort types, pasting the string
into source code should be parsable as a type. Today that's not
always the case.
I smell an action item here. What can be done to make this less
of "There's no other way to do it" and more "That's how it should
be done"?
Mike
