On 17.06.2011 14:34, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 17.06.2011 09:03, schrieb Kagamin:
Daniel Gibson Wrote:
No.
The whole point of toStringz() is that it returns a string that can be
fed to normal C functions that work on strings.
And C functions expect a "string" to be a char* (or wchar*) pointing to
a block of memory containing the string and terminated by '\0'.
The functionality of toStringz() should not change.
This is just about the name.
Why don't you like to!c_str(); ?
What is to!c_str() supposed to return?
To be a useful alternative to toStringz() it needs to be
char* to!c_str(string s) (or immutable(char)* or something)
i.e. the related toImpl looks like
char* toImpl(c_str, string)(string s)
=> 3 types! (char*, c_str, string)
But the signature of toImpl is
T toImpl(T, S)(S s)
so the related to's signature is
T to(T)(S s)
or something like that.
This means, that the return type T is the same type you instantiate to
with.
That means to!c_str(string s) will return a c_str struct and not a char*
And, as I explained in my previous post, C functions want a char* not a
struct c_str.
Fixable with alias this, but still I dislike this c_str artifact.
It looks like you are converting type, while all it does is ensuring
that there is enough 0 bytes past the end of string.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
