Pragmatically, I seem to have noted that in languages with low level strings, people invariably come up with librairies that provide higher-level strings. C/C++ provided low-level strings only initially, then a not-so-powerful std::string; and we saw QString, wxString, irr::string, BetterString, countless others...
Java, on the other end, provided a powerful high-level String object from the start; and to my knowledge it is used consistently in all Java programs with no other string classes being made. I do acknowlegde that D arrays are much better than C/C++ arrays. Still, my prediction is that if D chooses to stick to C-style function calls, and does not provide a standard high-level String object, then a myriad of string objects will start popping around. Because lots of people like OOP and don't like C-style calls. Just my 2c :) I mean be wrong -- Auria Walter Bright Wrote: > Strings in D are deliberately meant to be arrays, not special things. Other > languages make them special because they have insufficiently powerful arrays. > > As for indexing by code point, I also believe this is a mistake. It is > proposed > often, but overlooks: > > 1. most string operations, such as copying and searching, even regular > expressions, work just fine using regular indices. > > 2. doing the operations in (1) using code points and having to continually > decode the strings would result in disastrously slow code. > > 3. the user can always layer a code point interface over the strings, but > going > the other way is not so practical.
