On Saturday 11 September 2010 09:07:38 bearophile wrote: > I don't know why it returns a const(char)* instead of a char*. Do you know > why? > > Bye, > bearophile
Well, if you look at toStringz()'s implementation, you may notice that there's commented out code which would not make a copy if there's a 0 in memory one passed the end of the string. It would simply use that 0 as the end of the const char* and avoid the copy. That being the case, it avoids a copy but must be const, because the string is immutable. Now, why that code is commented out, I don't know, and if toStringz() continues to always copy the string, then char* would likely be a better choice. But it could be that whatever issue made it so that the non-copying version was commented out will be fixed at some point, and toStringz() will once again cease to make a copy if it doesn't have to, at which point it would need to return const. - Jonathan M Davis
