I agree completely. The only way D can steal the market of programming languages is to be fast moving. Part of being fast-moving is being able to quickly fix any problems, that are detected, instead of building an infrastructure around those problems.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:39 PM, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 14/05/2012 19:38, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit : > > On 14-05-2012 15:21, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: >> >>> I thing the zero-terminated literal shtick is pointless. Literals are >>> rarely passed to C functions, so we gotta use the std.utf.toUTFz anyway. >>> >>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Christophe >>> <trav...@phare.normalesup.org >>> <mailto:travert@phare.**normalesup.org<trav...@phare.normalesup.org> >>> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> deadalnix , dans le message (digitalmars.D:167258), a écrit : >>> > A good solution would be to set the pointer to 0 when the length >>> is set >>> > to 0. >>> >>> String literal are zero-terminated. "" cannot point to 0x0, >>> unless we drop this rule. Maybe we should... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bye, >>> Gor Gyolchanyan. >>> >> >> This is very false. I invite you to read almost any module in druntime. >> You'll find that it makes heavy use of printf debugging. >> >> That being said, dropping the null-termination rule when passing strings >> to non-const(char)* parameters/variables/etc would be sane enough (I >> think). >> >> > This looks to me like a bad practice. C string and D string are different > beasts, and we have toStringz . > > It is kind of dumb to create a WAT is the language because druntime dev > did mistakes. It have to be fixed. > -- Bye, Gor Gyolchanyan.
