On Apr 2, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Huon Wilson <dbau...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/04/14 08:54, Patrick Walton wrote: > >> What about strings? Should we be using `StrBuf` as well? > > I don't see why not. The same arguments apply.
I agree. I was actually quite surprised to see that the type was named StrBuf, I assumed it was going to be Str just as Vec is not VecBuf. I'm in full agreement with Huon on this matter. The standard libraries should return Vec<T> instead of ~[T] in pretty much every case (the only real exception I can think of is Vec<~[T]> because of the ability to convert to Vec<&[T]> or &[&T]] for free). Similarly I think we should be returning StrBuf instead of ~str in all cases. And finally, I think we should just name it Str instead of StrBuf. If developers want to use ~[T] and ~str in their own code, that's fine, but the standard libraries should err on the side of preserving information (e.g. capacity) and providing a consistent experience. If there's one thing I really want to avoid above all else, it's confusing people about whether they should be using ~[T] or Vec<T>, because some standard library code uses one and some code uses the other. -Kevin _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
