On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 > Aside from the string problem the very existence of this debate exposes a fundamental flaw in the entire software engineering industry: heavy usage of ancient crap. If some library is so damned hard to refresh, then something's terribly wrong with it. It's about damned time ancient libraries are thrown away. -- Bye, Gor Gyolchanyan.
