On 02/11/2016 04:44 PM, John Colvin wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 21:38:42 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:38:42PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 02/11/2016 11:22 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>[...]
My understanding is that's the whole point of the "dump" function
being discussed. Unless I misunderstood?
IMO `dump` is worthwhile but `print` seems little more than an alias
for `writefln`. I can't find enough justification to warrant `print`.
(Next thing you know, newbies will be asking why there's both `print`
and `write` that do the same thing except different.)
T
yeah, dump is really useful, print is a bit marginal.
Ahh, I missed the "print" stuff. I do agree it's not as useful as
"dump", plus the name seems to suggest a connection with printf, which
strikes me as confusing.
I do think the "print" function discussed (ie, like writeln, but
auto-inserts spaces between the args) is occasionally nice for
script-like programs. In fact, I think I have a function like that in
Scriptlike specifically because of that...unless it's back in my older
utility library instead...
I'd be perfectly happy to have it, particularly if it had a less
confusing name, but can definitely see it being debatable whether it
really is Phobos-worthy.
