January 27, 2011 Re: const(Object)ref is here! | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Steven Schveighoffer | On 21/12/2010 18:19, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:10:12 -0500, Bruno Medeiros > <brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail> wrote: > >> On 06/12/2010 19:00, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >>> On Monday, December 06, 2010 05:41:42 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >>> >>> I have no problem with writeTo(). I just couldn't remember what it >>> was and >>> didn't want to take the time to look it up, and the name isn't as >>> obvious as >>> toString(), since it's not a standard name which exists in other >>> languages, and >>> it isn't actually returning anything. Whether it's to or from would >>> depend on >>> how you look at it - to the given delegate or from the object. But >>> writeTo() is >>> fine. Once it's used, it'll be remembered. >>> >> >> I don't think it's entirely fine. It should at least have >> "string"/"String" somewhere in the name. (I mentioned this on the >> other original thread, although late in time) > > First, I'll say that it's not as important to me as it seems to be to > you, and I think others feel the same way. writeTo seems perfectly fine > to me, and the 'string' part is implied by the char[] parameter for the > delegate. > > Changing the name to contain 'string' is fine as long as: > > 1) it's not toString. This is already established as "returning a > string" in both prior D and other languages. I think this would be too > confusing. > 2) it's short. I don't want writeAsStringTo or something similar. > > What did you have in mind? > > -Steve Sorry for the long delay in replying.. I don't have any specific favorite name. Could be writeString, asString, stringWrite, ouputString, even toString (despite a different signature from other languages), etc. Or a similar name with Text instead of String, as Andrei suggested (although I'm not 100% sure about that last one). It's just that I would prefer the String connotation to be implied in the function name, not just implied in the parameter (makes the code clearer, in a somewhat subjective opinion). And also to not take up the "writeTo" overload in all Objects ever, as some might want to use that overload name for their own stuff. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer |
January 27, 2011 Re: const(Object)ref is here! | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Bruno Medeiros | On 1/27/11 9:33 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 21/12/2010 19:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/21/10 12:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:10:12 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
>>> <brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/12/2010 19:00, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 06, 2010 05:41:42 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:44:07 -0500, spir<denis.spir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:31:41 -0800
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathan M Davis<jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> toString() (or writeFrom() or whatever
>>>>>>>> it's going to become)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> guess it was writeTo() ;-) but "writeFrom" is nice as well, we
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> find some useful use for it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was proposed as writeTo, but I'm not opposed to a different name.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem with writeTo(). I just couldn't remember what it
>>>>> was and
>>>>> didn't want to take the time to look it up, and the name isn't as
>>>>> obvious as
>>>>> toString(), since it's not a standard name which exists in other
>>>>> languages, and
>>>>> it isn't actually returning anything. Whether it's to or from would
>>>>> depend on
>>>>> how you look at it - to the given delegate or from the object. But
>>>>> writeTo() is
>>>>> fine. Once it's used, it'll be remembered.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's entirely fine. It should at least have
>>>> "string"/"String" somewhere in the name. (I mentioned this on the
>>>> other original thread, although late in time)
>>>
>>> First, I'll say that it's not as important to me as it seems to be to
>>> you, and I think others feel the same way. writeTo seems perfectly fine
>>> to me, and the 'string' part is implied by the char[] parameter for the
>>> delegate.
>>>
>>> Changing the name to contain 'string' is fine as long as:
>>>
>>> 1) it's not toString. This is already established as "returning a
>>> string" in both prior D and other languages. I think this would be too
>>> confusing.
>>> 2) it's short. I don't want writeAsStringTo or something similar.
>>>
>>> What did you have in mind?
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>
>> Conversion to text should be called toText. That makes the essence of
>> the function visible (it emits characters) without tying the
>> representation of the text.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I don't understand this point. The representation of the text is tied,
> it's going to be char[] ( aka UTF-8). Unless you were planning to have
> overloads of toText, but that sounds like an awful idea.
Could be wchar or dchar.
Andrei
|
January 28, 2011 Re: const(Object)ref is here! | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On 27/01/2011 18:12, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 1/27/11 9:33 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote: >> On 21/12/2010 19:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> On 12/21/10 12:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:10:12 -0500, Bruno Medeiros >>>> <brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 06/12/2010 19:00, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 06, 2010 05:41:42 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:44:07 -0500, spir<denis.spir@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:31:41 -0800 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jonathan M Davis<jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> toString() (or writeFrom() or whatever >>>>>>>>> it's going to become) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> guess it was writeTo() ;-) but "writeFrom" is nice as well, we >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>> find some useful use for it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was proposed as writeTo, but I'm not opposed to a different name. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no problem with writeTo(). I just couldn't remember what it >>>>>> was and >>>>>> didn't want to take the time to look it up, and the name isn't as >>>>>> obvious as >>>>>> toString(), since it's not a standard name which exists in other >>>>>> languages, and >>>>>> it isn't actually returning anything. Whether it's to or from would >>>>>> depend on >>>>>> how you look at it - to the given delegate or from the object. But >>>>>> writeTo() is >>>>>> fine. Once it's used, it'll be remembered. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think it's entirely fine. It should at least have >>>>> "string"/"String" somewhere in the name. (I mentioned this on the >>>>> other original thread, although late in time) >>>> >>>> First, I'll say that it's not as important to me as it seems to be to >>>> you, and I think others feel the same way. writeTo seems perfectly fine >>>> to me, and the 'string' part is implied by the char[] parameter for the >>>> delegate. >>>> >>>> Changing the name to contain 'string' is fine as long as: >>>> >>>> 1) it's not toString. This is already established as "returning a >>>> string" in both prior D and other languages. I think this would be too >>>> confusing. >>>> 2) it's short. I don't want writeAsStringTo or something similar. >>>> >>>> What did you have in mind? >>>> >>>> -Steve >>> >>> Conversion to text should be called toText. That makes the essence of >>> the function visible (it emits characters) without tying the >>> representation of the text. >>> >>> Andrei >> >> I don't understand this point. The representation of the text is tied, >> it's going to be char[] ( aka UTF-8). Unless you were planning to have >> overloads of toText, but that sounds like an awful idea. > > Could be wchar or dchar. > > Andrei > You mean to say that there would be three possible signatures for toText (for char[], wchar[], dchar[]), that the class coder can choose? But of course, the coder would only need to define one, right? (otherwise that would be the awful idea) -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer |
January 28, 2011 Re: const(Object)ref is here! | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Bruno Medeiros | On 1/28/11 5:37 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> You mean to say that there would be three possible signatures for toText
> (for char[], wchar[], dchar[]), that the class coder can choose?
> But of course, the coder would only need to define one, right?
> (otherwise that would be the awful idea)
Probably standardizing on one width is a good idea.
Andrei
|
February 01, 2011 Re: const(Object)ref is here! | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On 28/01/2011 15:19, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 1/28/11 5:37 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote: >> You mean to say that there would be three possible signatures for toText >> (for char[], wchar[], dchar[]), that the class coder can choose? >> But of course, the coder would only need to define one, right? >> (otherwise that would be the awful idea) > > Probably standardizing on one width is a good idea. > > Andrei Indeed. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation