Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jeremie Pelletier
<jerem...@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
303 pages and counting!
Andrei
Soon the PI level, or at least 10 times PI!
A hundred even. ;-)
Coming along. I'm writing about strings and Unicode right now. I was
wondering what people think about allowing concatenation (with ~ and
~=) of strings of different character widths. The support library
could do all of the transcoding.
(I understand that concatenating an array of wchar or char with a
dchar is already in bugzilla.)
Andrei
I don't know if thats a good idea, its better when string encoding is
explicit so you know where your reallocations are.
The beauty of it is that reallocation with ~ occurs anyway, and with ~=
is anyway imminent, regardless of the character width you're reallocating.
Allowing concatenation of strings of different widths is a nice way of
acknowledging at the language level that all character widths are
encodings of abstract characters.
ie if I know some routine will have to convert a utf16 parameter to
utf8 to append it to a string, then ill try and either make it output
utf16 or input utf8. If its implicit its much harder to find and
optimize these cases.
to!string() is easy enough to use anyways.
But it could be good to add a range type that does this with multiple
opAppend/opAppendAssign overloads.
One problem with
s ~= to!string(someDstring);
is that it does two allocations instead of one.
Andrei
Good points, I didn't think of the separation between characters and
encodings or the extra allocation from to.
You have my vote for this feature then!
Jeremie
