On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:07:25 +0000
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com>
wrote:

> Also for some reason boolean value of a string is derived from ptr instead of length... meh.
for the reason that all reference objects either "null" or "non-null". empty string is non-null, so... it's C leftover actually. there are alot such leftovers in D.

On 9/14/2014 2:09 AM, WhatMeWorry wrote:
>
> The name string is aliased to immutable(char)[]
>
> Why was immutable chosen? Why not mutable.  Or why not just make another
> alias called
>
> strung where it is aliased to mutable(char)[]

If you want a mutable array of characters, just use char[].


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Saturday, 13 September 2014 at 23:21:09 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 September 2014 at 22:41:39 UTC, AsmMan wrote:
>> D string are actullay C-strings?
>
> No. But string *literals* are guaranteed to be 0-terminated for easier interoperability with C code.
>
> David

ah makes sense.


On Sunday, 14 September 2014 at 12:07:16 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 September 2014 at 09:07:26 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Sunday, 14 September 2014 at 00:34:56 UTC, WhatMeWorry wrote:
>>> So is one form (Empty strings versus null strings) considered better than the other?  Or does it depend on the context?
>>
>> For all practical purposes they should be equivalent in D code. I suppose the distinction exists because somebody claimed he can make sense of it. Some API may rely on distinction between null and empty string, like XML DOM, though I don't think such interface is very useful.
>>
>> Also for some reason boolean value of a string is derived from ptr instead of length... meh.
>
> Which makes sense given the distinction exists, IMO. Compare for example with Ruby, where empty strings and `0` integers also evaluate to true, but only `nil` and `false` evaluated to false.

That's why I don't like most of dynamic languages... type system is a mess. I don't like even the fact one can do:

x = "abc";
f(x)
x = 10;
g(x);

and it work

On Sunday, 14 September 2014 at 13:48:01 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> for the reason that all reference objects either "null" or "non-null".
> empty string is non-null, so... it's C leftover actually. there are
> alot such leftovers in D.

For pointers it's logical, but it doesn't work as good for slices: they're better thought of as either empty or non-empty.