On 12/28/2011 06:40 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/28/11 11:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/28/2011 4:06 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
I rarely *ever* need an immutable string. What I usually need is
const(char)[].
I'd say 99%+ of the time I need only a const string.
I have a very different experience with strings. I can't even remember a
case where I wanted to modify an existing string (this includes all my C
and C++ usage of strings). It's always assemble a string at one place,
and then refer to that string ever after (and never modify it).
What immutable strings make possible is treating strings as if they were
value types. Nearly every language I know of treats them as immutable
except for C and C++.
I remember the day at Kahili we figured immutable(char)[] will just work
as it needs to. It felt pretty awesome.
Andrei
I agree. But I am confused by the fact that you are suggesting it
actually does not work as it needs to at other places in this thread.
