On Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 23:12:10 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
On Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 22:44:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/26/2018 8:43 AM, Chris wrote:
I wanted to get rid of autodecode and I even offered to test
it on my string heavy code to see what breaks (and maybe
write guidelines for the transition), but somehow the whole
idea of getting rid of autodecode was silently abandoned.
What more could I do?
It's not silently abandoned. It will break just about every D
program out there. I have a hard time with the idea that
breakage of old code is inexcusable, so let's break every old
program?
Can I just throw in here that I like autodecoding and I think
it's good?
If you want ranges that iterate over bytes, then just use
arrays of bytes. If you want Latin1 text, use Latin1 strings.
If you want Unicode, you get Unicode iteration. This seems
right and proper to me. Hell I'd love if the language was
*more* aggressive about validating casts to strings.
Same here. I do make unicode errors more often than I'd care to
admit (someString[$-1] being the most common; I need to write a
lastChar helper function), but autodecoding means I can avoid
that class of errors.
