On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:00:26 -0400, bearophile wrote: > Just few comments to the source code. I have not used it yet. > > version (Windows) private alias Signed!size_t ssize_t; > > Why not just ptrdiff_t ?
I find ssize_t (which is standard on POSIX) to be much more descriptive of its purpose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_t > In theory this too is (in C[] path) but I presume you have found > troubles: private C[] chompDirSeparators(C)(C[] path) @safe pure > nothrow The problem is that path will then be const(C[]), and it becomes impossible to return a slice of it as C[]. The correct solution is to use inout, and I intend to do so once inout is correctly implemented in DMD. > So here you have had to use Unqual > immutable(Unqual!C1)[] setExtension(C1, C2)(in C1[] path, in C2[] ext) > immutable(Unqual!C1)[] defaultExtension(C1, C2)(in C1[] path, in C2[] > ext) > > Instead of Unqual isn't it nicer to use a Deconst!() template? Hmm, I guess you're right. "shared" shouldn't be stripped, for instance. > // Detects whether the given types are all string types of the same > width private template Strings...) if (Strings.length > 0) > > I think that a CTFE function with a static foreach is > better/faster/simpler than the recursive compatibleStrings() template. Maybe, but I also find it uglier in use due to the extra parentheses. if (compatibleStrings!(T, U, V)()) Personally, I don't think it's worth changing it. > unittest > { > > I suggest to add a comment that tells what function/class/struct is > tested in this unittest (this is a poor's man named unittest). I don't think that is necessary. Looking at the unittests in this module, I think it is rather obvious what is being tested -- not to mention that the unittests always follow directly after the function being tested. -Lars
