On Sunday, 16 March 2014 at 16:58:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
A classic idiom for reading lines and keeping them is
f.byLine.map!(x => x.idup) to get strings instead of the buffer
etc.
The current behavior trips new users on occasion, and the idiom
solving it is very frequent. So what the heck - let's put that
in a function, expose and document it nicely, and call it a day.
A good name would help a lot. Let's paint that bikeshed!
Andrei
I'm for it in the sense that : "f.byLine.map!(x => x.idup)" is
*WRONG*.
It'll allocate on *every* call to front. Pipe it into a filter,
and you have massive gratuitous memory allocations.
A named function will do better than the sloppy code above. So
there's my vote...
...or... we could merge my "cache" proposal
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1364).
I'll admit I wrote it with *that* particular case in mind. Then,
we promote:
"f.byLine.map!(x => x.idup).cache()"
But wait! Now it correct, but *definitly* not nooby friendly. So
yes, my vote is to have a named function.
On Sunday, 16 March 2014 at 17:51:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 3/16/14, 10:49 AM, bearophile wrote:
A good function name for the copying version is:
"byDupLines"
It introduces the notion of "dup" to newbies. I'd rather go
with a natural name.
Andrei
There comes a point where you have to learn the language to use
it. "dup" is an array built-in; it's not ridiculous that expect
the user to know it.
On Sunday, 16 March 2014 at 18:19:01 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Once dup/idup become free functions in object you can also
write:
f.byLine.map!idup
Indeed, I've been wanting to write this before. IMO, not being
able to write it is a serious inconsistency.
