On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:31:26 -0400, deadalnix <
deadalnix@gmail.com> 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.
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.