On 03/04/2011 07:17 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday 03 March 2011 19:23:33 Graham St Jack wrote:
On 04/03/11 12:34, Bekenn wrote:
On 3/3/11 3:30 PM, Graham St Jack wrote:
My first instinct would be to use non-templated functions that take
const
char[].
Please don't ever restrict encodings like that. As much as possible,
libraries should seek to be encoding agnostic (though I'm all for
const-qualifying parameters). This is one area where I feel the
standard library severely lacks at present.
As a Windows developer, I prefer to use wchar strings by default and
use only the W versions of the Windows API functions, because the A
versions severely limit functionality. Only the W versions have full
support for Unicode; the A versions are entirely dependent on the
current (8-bit) code page. This means no support for UNC paths or
paths longer than 260 characters, and also means that international
characters commonly end up completely garbled. Good practice in
Windows is to consider the A versions deprecated and avoid them like
the plague.
Ok, I don't mind supporting wchar and dchar in addition to char,
especially if Windows insists on using them.
My main issue here is with the constness of the parameters. I think the
correct parameter to pass is const C[]. This has the advantages of:
* Accepting both mutable and immutable data.
* Declares that the function won't mutate the data.
* Declares that the function doesn't expect the data to be immutable.
It would be even better to use const scope char[], declaring that a
reference won't be kept, but it seems that scope in this context is
deprecated.
Once upon a time "in" meant const scope. Does anyone know what it means
now?
That's still what it means. scope in this context is _not_ deprecated. Only
scoped local variables (not scoped parameters or scope statements) are
deprecated. in would be the correct thing to use. It's used elswhere with
strings is Phobos. And yes, as long as the strings being passed in are not being
mutated, then having the parameters be in is the correct thing to do.
What about 'in' as default? I think a function changing its params is a special
case --and somewhat unsafe-- which should be clearly indicated at the interface
level.
void decode (S,T) (S source, mutable T target) {...}
unchanged ---------------------^
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
