On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:10:12 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
<brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail> wrote:
On 06/12/2010 19:00, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, December 06, 2010 05:41:42 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:44:07 -0500, spir<denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:31:41 -0800
Jonathan M Davis<jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote:
toString() (or writeFrom() or whatever
it's going to become)
guess it was writeTo() ;-) but "writeFrom" is nice as well, we should
find some useful use for it
It was proposed as writeTo, but I'm not opposed to a different name.
I have no problem with writeTo(). I just couldn't remember what it was
and
didn't want to take the time to look it up, and the name isn't as
obvious as
toString(), since it's not a standard name which exists in other
languages, and
it isn't actually returning anything. Whether it's to or from would
depend on
how you look at it - to the given delegate or from the object. But
writeTo() is
fine. Once it's used, it'll be remembered.
I don't think it's entirely fine. It should at least have
"string"/"String" somewhere in the name. (I mentioned this on the other
original thread, although late in time)
First, I'll say that it's not as important to me as it seems to be to you,
and I think others feel the same way. writeTo seems perfectly fine to me,
and the 'string' part is implied by the char[] parameter for the delegate.
Changing the name to contain 'string' is fine as long as:
1) it's not toString. This is already established as "returning a string"
in both prior D and other languages. I think this would be too confusing.
2) it's short. I don't want writeAsStringTo or something similar.
What did you have in mind?
-Steve
