To Walter, about char[] initialization by FF

Hasan Aljudy hasan.aljudy at gmail.com
Mon Jul 31 04:16:40 PDT 2006


Serg Kovrov wrote:
> * Oskar Linde:
> 
>> Having char[].length return something other than the actual number
>> of char-units would break it's array semantics.
> 
> 
> Yes, I see. Thats why I do not like much char[] as substitute for string
> type.
> 
>> It is actually not very often that you need to count the number
>> of characters as opposed to the number of (UTF-8) code units.
> 
> 
> Why not use separate properties for that?
> 
>> Counting the number of characters is also a rather expensive
>> operation. 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Store once as property (and update as needed) is better than 
> calculate it each time you need it.
> 
>> All the ordinary operations (searching, slicing, concatenation, 
>> sub-string  search, etc) operate on code units rather than
>> characters.
> 
> 
> Yes that's tough one. If you want to slice an array - use array unit's 
> count for that. But if you want to slice a *string* (substring, search, 
> etc) - use character's count for that.
> 
> Maybe there should be interchangeable types - string and char[]. For 
> different length, slice, find, etc. behaviors? I mean it could be same 
> actual type, but different contexts for properties.
> 
> And besides, string as opposite to char[] is more pleasant for my eyes =)


I say this calls for a proper *standard* String class ... <g>



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list