On Sunday, 28 September 2014 at 23:21:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/28/2014 1:39 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
It can work just fine, and I wrote it. The problem is
convincing
someone to pull it :-( as the PR was closed and reopened with
autodecoding put back in.
The problem with pulling such PRs is that they introduce a
dichotomy
into Phobos. Some functions autodecode, some don't, and from a
user's
POV, it's completely arbitrary and random. Which leads to bugs
because
people can't possibly remember exactly which functions
autodecode and
which don't.
That's ALREADY the case, as I explained to bearophile.
The solution is not to have the ranges autodecode, but to have
the ALGORITHMS decide to autodecode (if they need it) or not
(if they don't).
No it isn't, despite you pretending otherwise. Right now there is
a simple rule - Phobos does auto-decoding everywhere and any
failure to do so is considered a bug. Sometimes it is possible to
bypass decoding for speed-up while preserving semantical
correctness but it is always implementation detail, from the
point of view of the API it can't be noticed (for valid unicode
string at least).
Your proposal would have been a precedent to adding _intetional_
exception. It is unacceptable.
