Edward Diener:
> I see the Phobos std.string. It seems, at first glance, not nearly as rich an implementation as the C++ std::string functionality.

A module of strings functions and the like is a work of the art of balance. More isn't always better. You have to put there the best/right functions, and throw away the useless ones, the more confusing ones, etc etc.

Bye,
bearophile

bearophile wrote:
> Edward Diener:
>> I see the Phobos std.string. It seems, at first glance, not nearly as rich an implementation as the C++ std::string functionality.
> 
> A module of strings functions and the like is a work of the art of balance. More isn't always better. You have to put there the best/right functions, and throw away the useless ones, the more confusing ones, etc etc.

I am one of those who really likes the C++ std::string class. I would not have chosen all the redundancy with C strings in the various functionality, since a std::string can always be constructed from a C string, but other than that I think it is excellent. I don't understand why D would not have wanted to create a std.string which mirrors that functionality, leaving out the C-isms except for construction. Maybe I will just do it myself and post it somewhere as I play around with D some more.

I think D has sometime tried not to be C++ to its detriment, and this is one more case of that ( there are plenty others ).

Edward Diener Wrote:

> bearophile wrote:
> > Edward Diener:
> >> I see the Phobos std.string. It seems, at first glance, not nearly as rich an implementation as the C++ std::string functionality.
> > 
> > A module of strings functions and the like is a work of the art of balance. More isn't always better. You have to put there the best/right functions, and throw away the useless ones, the more confusing ones, etc etc.
> 
> I am one of those who really likes the C++ std::string class. I would not have chosen all the redundancy with C strings in the various functionality, since a std::string can always be constructed from a C string, but other than that I think it is excellent. I don't understand why D would not have wanted to create a std.string which mirrors that functionality, leaving out the C-isms except for construction. Maybe I will just do it myself and post it somewhere as I play around with D some more.
> 
> I think D has sometime tried not to be C++ to its detriment, and this is one more case of that ( there are plenty others ).

I use tango and D1 but I for one would like to see strings available as a type rather than char[] which I just find confusing . So if you create a better string please do it in tango also.

I think there may be something there already but I havn't had time to investigate.

bearophile wrote:
> Edward Diener:
>> I see the Phobos std.string. It seems, at first glance, not nearly as rich an implementation as the C++ std::string functionality.
> 
> A module of strings functions and the like is a work of the art of balance. More isn't always better. You have to put there the best/right functions, and throw away the useless ones, the more confusing ones, etc etc.

How does std.string measure up to your standards?  No "erase" function for removing a subrange efficiently, but yet it contains "soundex()"?

--bb

Bill Baxter:
> How does std.string measure up to your standards?  No "erase" function for removing a subrange efficiently, but yet it contains "soundex()"?

I am not an expert of string APIs yet, but I have already posted here few lists of comments, where I have expressed some of my comments. I think std.string:
- Sometimes it's good enough
- it has 1-3 functions that I think can be removed/renamed
- will enjoy some general array algorithms instead of just string ones, it may mean some functions can be generalized and moved elsewhere (like Tango has done, I think).
- a better unicode management may be in order
- a lazy xslice function plus few other may be added, see my d.string module in my d libs for some functions I think are missing.
- Most functions are slow and they can improved, for example see my string module again for a _much_ faster case-changing function. And Tango shows that it's positive to give you optional ways to avoid heap activity.

Bye,
bearophile

Tower Ty wrote:
> Edward Diener Wrote:
> 
>> bearophile wrote:
>>> Edward Diener:
>>>> I see the Phobos std.string. It seems, at first glance, not nearly as rich an implementation as the C++ std::string functionality.
>>> A module of strings functions and the like is a work of the art of balance. More isn't always better. You have to put there the best/right functions, and throw away the useless ones, the more confusing ones, etc etc.
>> I am one of those who really likes the C++ std::string class. I would not have chosen all the redundancy with C strings in the various functionality, since a std::string can always be constructed from a C string, but other than that I think it is excellent. I don't understand why D would not have wanted to create a std.string which mirrors that functionality, leaving out the C-isms except for construction. Maybe I will just do it myself and post it somewhere as I play around with D some more.
>>
>> I think D has sometime tried not to be C++ to its detriment, and this is one more case of that ( there are plenty others ).
> 
> I use tango and D1 but I for one would like to see strings available as a type rather than char[] which I just find confusing . So if you create a better string please do it in tango also.
> 
> I think there may be something there already but I havn't had time to investigate.

There's mtext: http://www.dprogramming.com/mtext.php