On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:31:26 -0400, deadalnix <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 15/05/2012 17:51, Christophe a écrit :
deadalnix , dans le message (digitalmars.D:167404), a écrit :
This looks to me like a bad practice. C string and D string are
different beasts, and we have toStringz .
C string and D string are different, but it's not a bad idea to have
string *literals* that works for both C and D strings, otherwise using
printf will lead to a bug each time the programmer forget the trailing
\0.
Due to slicing, it is already unsafe to pass a D string to C code. The
main problem is array casting silently to pointers, making the error
easy to do.
How so? strings are immutable, and literals are *truly* immutable.
Fixing the problem for literal isn't going to solve it at all.
The real solution is toStringz
toStringz can allocate a new block in order to ensure 0 gets added. This
is ludicrous!
You are trying to tell me that any time I want to call a C function with a
string literal, I have to first heap-allocate it, even though I *know*
it's safe.
I don't see a "problem" anywhere. The current system is perfect for what
it needs to do.
-Steve
