Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:29 +0200, Adam Burton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I quite like the idea of
>> void[] representing a chunk of memory that could contain anything,
>> serialized data; an array of ubytes or strings, and allow ubyte[] to just
>> represent an array of ubytes (after all is serialized data an array of
>> bytes
>> or a block of data containing various data types cramed into it in some
>> organised manner?). In the end it is just a convention I like, not
>> attached
>> to it or anything, and D tends to discourage working based on conventions
>> anyway, I guess I am somewhat playing devil's advocate in this paragraph
>> :-).
>
> I believe the reasons for not using void[] is exactly that it could
> contain anything, including pointers, which likely would not be valid in
> the other end.
>
How does a ubyte[] prevent that? If you've serialized an int (or even a
pointer) then ubyte[] is just as bad, ubyte[0] would seem to indicate a
meaningful unit of data itself when it's actually just the first byte of an
int (or pointer). void[] at least says "I don't know, I just know the start
and how long, you figure it out, I presume I have somewhere to go to be
given context".
