string types: const(char)[] and cstring

[Oskar Linde]

Myron Alexander skrev:
> noSpam wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>>>  const(char)[]  // A mutable array of immutable characters?
>>>>  const(char[])  // An immutable array of mutable characters?
>>>>  const(const(char)[]) // An immutable array of immutable characters?
>>>>  char[]         // A mutable array of mutable characters?
>>>>
>>>> What will happen with the .reverse and .sort array properties when used
>>>> with const, invariant, and final qualifiers?
>>>
>>> They'll all fail.
>>
>> I think it's better to return reversed/sorted copy. This will make 
>> such change more backward compatibile.
> 
> This makes sense. For immutable arrays, the definition should drop "in 
> place" and just return a copy.

Which would be very confusing. This is instead a perfect opportunity to 
  take the *much* better path of finally depreciating the .sort and 
.reverse "properties". Equally good or better library implementations 
are possible (and exists). For example, .sort can't take an ordering 
predicate. Also, the special casing of reversing char[] and wchar[] 
arrays, preserving the encoded unicode code points is definitely (imho) 
too specialized to belong in the language (runtime) as opposed to a library.

/ Oskar