I'd really like a parameter decorator that caused either automatic conversion of a character (char or wchar) array to a zero-terminated string, a la toStringz, or, preferably, requires a cast (thus causing the programmer to be mindful of the need to null-terminate).

In fact, I'd quite like any function taking char/wchar* requires an explicit cast from char/wchar[]. Is there a reason why this is not required now?

> I'd really like a parameter decorator that caused either automatic conversion of a character (char or wchar) array to a zero-terminated
string,
> a la toStringz, or, preferably, requires a cast (thus causing the
programmer
> to be mindful of the need to null-terminate).
>
> In fact, I'd quite like any function taking char/wchar* requires an
explicit
> cast from char/wchar[]. Is there a reason why this is not required now?
>
>
>

I would prefer a member function c_str() as in C++ STL. No ugly cast,
no unwanted conversions...

Does that make a zero-terminated copy, or modify the array itself?

Either way I don't really like it, since it is limiting. There are cases when the programmer will know that the array is already zero-terminated, so calling a modifying (or copying and modifying) function will be inefficient. There will also be cases where the programmer will know that a zero-termination is not required, and to do one would be inefficient.

I want a cast, and the uglier the better. This will be used in connecting to legacy C functions, and in that case I think it's a good thing that it's highly visible (and ugly, if you will).


"Philippe Mori" <philippe_mori@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bk9oeq$2565$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I'd really like a parameter decorator that caused either automatic conversion of a character (char or wchar) array to a zero-terminated
> string,
> > a la toStringz, or, preferably, requires a cast (thus causing the
> programmer
> > to be mindful of the need to null-terminate).
> >
> > In fact, I'd quite like any function taking char/wchar* requires an
> explicit
> > cast from char/wchar[]. Is there a reason why this is not required now?
> >
> >
> >
>
> I would prefer a member function c_str() as in C++ STL. No ugly cast,
> no unwanted conversions...
>
>

Philippe Mori wrote:

>>I'd really like a parameter decorator that caused either automatic
>>conversion of a character (char or wchar) array to a zero-terminated
>>    
>>
>string,
>  
>
>>a la toStringz, or, preferably, requires a cast (thus causing the
>>    
>>
>programmer
>  
>
>>to be mindful of the need to null-terminate).
>>
>>In fact, I'd quite like any function taking char/wchar* requires an
>>    
>>
>explicit
>  
>
>>cast from char/wchar[]. Is there a reason why this is not required now?
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I would prefer a member function c_str() as in C++ STL. No ugly cast,
>no unwanted conversions...
>
>
>  
>
And then you could have d_str() to convert back (just kidding).