Bill Baxter Wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Justin Johansson <n...@spam.com> wrote: > > Lutger Wrote: > > > >> Don wrote: > >> ... > >> > > >> > There is a definite use for such as thing. But the existing toString() > >> > is much, much worse than useless. People think you can do something with > >> > it, but you can't. > >> > eg, people have asked for BigInt to support toString(). That is an > >> > over-my-dead-body. > >> > >> Since you are in the know and probably the biggest toString() hater around: > >> are there plans (or rejections thereof) to change toString() before D2 > >> turns > >> gold? Seems to me it could break quite some code. > >> > > > > I have a feeling (and I may well be wrong) that toString might be used in > > relation to associative arrays. I implemented an AA recently based upon > > a struct key (I think). Though I cannot remember the exact details I do > > remember DMD saying something about toString not implemented and > > so without thinking I gave the struct a toString and that kept DMD happy. > > Since the code was throw-away I didn't bother to investigate. > > > > Like I say, I cannot remember the details but others may recall some similar > > experience. For all I know it may be a case of RTFM? > > Shouldn't be the case. From TFM: > """ > Classes can be used as the KeyType. For this to work, the class > definition must override the following member functions of class > Object: > > hash_t toHash() > bool opEquals(Object) > int opCmp(Object) > """ > > --bb
I think you are right; if I can dig up what it was, and if relevant to this discussion, I'll post it. Ignore what I said for mom. Just wondering now though and in reference to Lutger's comment > >> Since you are in the know and probably the biggest toString() hater around: > >> are there plans (or rejections thereof) to change toString() before D2 > >> turns > >> gold? Seems to me it could break quite some code. how much core code would be broken if toString was actually banished?
