toString vs toUtf8???

Alexander Panek alexander.panek at brainsware.org
Sun Dec 16 23:49:26 PST 2007


On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:09:19 -0500
"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> "davidl" <davidl at 126.com> wrote in message
> news:op.t3gmbbugeb62bo at lzg...
> >
> > I really don't get why there was an argument about it.
> > Obviously tango team chose a bad name. toUtf8 has nothing to do
> > with enforcing a
> > string to utf8 encoded. Thus, toUtf8 is misleading. And as a
> > library API , the
> > design goal is to make each API simple. And design is a process of
> > solving problems.
> > While solving problems needs to decompose. It's a common sense to 
> > decompose problems.
> > But why when we come to this toString and toUtf8, we forget to
> > decompose??
> >
> > Decompose toUtf8 -> we get toString -> Encode_String_Utf8
> >
> > Someone might argue toString is too long to type. But toStr is even 
> > shorter than toUtf8
> 
> What? 

no u!

-- 
Alexander Panek <alexander.panek at brainsware.org>



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list