On 16/06/2011 21:32, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> I have _never_
> heard the term stringz used outside of D. Searching for it online brings up
> _nothing_ (not even D).

Have you tested what results you get when searching for "c string"?

A...

Alix Pexton wrote:
> On 16/06/2011 21:32, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> I have _never_
>> heard the term stringz used outside of D. Searching for it online brings up
>> _nothing_ (not even D).
>
> Have you tested what results you get when searching for "c string"?
>
> A...

LOL.

Daniel Gibson Wrote:

> What is to!c_str() supposed to return?

C string obviously.

> 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.

I thought, D templates allow specialization, so it should be possible to specialize toImpl for c_str
like
auto toImpl(T,S)(S s) if(T==c_str)
{
  return ...
}

Am 17.06.2011 15:16, schrieb Kagamin:
> Daniel Gibson Wrote:
> 
>> What is to!c_str() supposed to return?
> 
> C string obviously.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I thought, D templates allow specialization, so it should be possible to specialize toImpl for c_str
> like
> auto toImpl(T,S)(S s) if(T==c_str)
> {
>   return ...
> }

This would be inconsistent with all other to implementations, as far as I know.

Dmitry Olshansky Wrote:

> 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.

It should convert if you pass it, say, dchar[].
toStringz should also support conversion to mutable string.

Daniel Gibson Wrote:

>   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)

btw, if we're talking about C api, the return type must not be char*, because c string character encoding is not utf-8, but char* implies utf-8.

Am 17.06.2011 15:21, schrieb Kagamin:
> Daniel Gibson Wrote:
> 
>>   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)
> 
> btw, if we're talking about C api, the return type must not be char*, because c string character encoding is not utf-8, but char* implies utf-8.

Of course we're talking about C api, that's the whole point of toStringz
What about C functions that *do* deal with UTF8?
And C functions that don't care about encoding?
I don't think you usually use different types used in C for ASCII, 8bit
encodings and UTF8..

On 2011-06-17 06:21, Kagamin wrote:
> Daniel Gibson Wrote:
> >   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)
> 
> btw, if we're talking about C api, the return type must not be char*, because c string character encoding is not utf-8, but char* implies utf-8.

The C string encoding that the system expects depends on your locale and the function that you're calling. For the most part, it _is_ UTF-8 - at least on Linux.

- Jonathan M Davis