On 13/10/2010 2:02 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/12/10 9:35 CDT, Justin Johansson wrote:
On 13/10/2010 1:28 AM, Justin Johansson wrote:
Yes, "do the darn string version already and cut all that crap".
This is probably the thing to do to make for familiarity among
library users [of other languages].
However, if you have an urge to back-end the implementation
of the colloquial "join" by your ideas, do not give up your
dream. So long as it is implemented as your private dream
no one will notice and you will remain internally satisfied. :-)
- JJ
I think I meant the "ubiquitous join" rather than the "colloquial
join".
By both I understand "join as in Python". Right?
Question is, where to stop?
1. string only (i.e. leave as is)
2. const(char)[] only (to allow joining char[] values)
3. various width of char, i.e. why shouldn't you join an array of wstring?
From 3, the incremental effort to generalize to any type is virtually
nonexistent, and the effort to generalize to ranges instead of arrays is
minor. To me these are positives.
Andrei
Yes, I agree from a range idiom point of view.
Now, while understanding that D people don't care much for the
XPath 2.0 type system, and not myself caring much for the back-end
implementation, my XPath-ish function signature for this join() function
to preserve the generality that you suggest would be
item() join( things as item()*, separator as item()* );
Of course I'm anticipating an understanding of the above XPath 2.0
function signature syntax, an even then, I suspect my proposed
signature to be too liberal.
Regards, Justin
