On 2011-06-16 12:16, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > stringz is neither a type nor a word. > > It *is* a word. A stringz is a string that ends in zero. This > family of traditional names (STRINGZ, ASCIZ, etc.) predates C itself. > > On the other hand, there is *no such thing* as a StringZ. You'd > never call it a "string zero". You'd call it a "zero terminated > string", or maybe a "C string". > > Changing it to "toCString" is completely pointless, a cost without > a benefit, but at least it's not a completely nonsensical name like > toStringZ.
Well, I'd argue that stringz is just as nonsensical as stringZ. I have _never_ heard the term stringz used outside of D. Searching for it online brings up _nothing_ (not even D). And I wouldn't really consider an identifier which is completely uppercase to necessarily say anything about where the beginning and end of a word is anyway, so I wouldn't really consider that much of a precedent. But it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether we as a group think that renaming toStringz is worthwhile, and if so, what we name it to. _No one_ thus far has liked the name toStringZ, even if they agree that toStringz should be changed. They're pretty much all voting for toCString. So, there's no way that it's going to end up as toStringZ. I'm going to let this thread go a bit longer before I decide what I'm going to do, but from the looks of it, we're not reaching any kind of consensus on this, and I'm not going to change toStringz unless we actually reach a consensus on the matter. The discussions on fixing the function names in Phobos (and in particular, std.string) resulted in an almost unanimous decision to fix the function names in Phobos to be properly camelcased. So, in general, it's worth making those changes. However, this particular discussion about this particular function is anything but unanimous, so unless a greater agreement is reached than is currently happening, toStringz isn't going to be changed. - Jonathan M Davis
