Am 23.09.2013 16:16, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
On 9/23/13 7:07 AM, Manu wrote:
On 24 September 2013 00:04, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
On 9/22/13 10:20 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Am 23.09.2013 01:49, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
Hello,
2. Untyped allocator - traffics exclusively in ubyte[].
Why "ubyte[]" and not "void[]"?
It's the logical choice at this level.
ubyte[] == "these are octets"
Isn't that what void[] also means?
Except it says "these are un-typed octets, ie, not a sequence of typed
integers in the range 0-255".
I think void[] means "objects of unknown type".
Andrei
I always understood void[] as block of unkown data. Which a allocator
should return in my opinion. Whats the point of "void" having a size in
D if we still do it the C way? In my opinion ubyte[] is a array of
values in the range of 0-255 like manu says. Also if you get a ubyte[]
you might get the opinion that it is initialized to all zeros or
something. Which might not be true for all allocators (performance ...)
If you get a void[] you know, all bets are off, and you have to check if
the allocator preinitialized it or not.
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut
