std.stringbuffer

[Frits van Bommel]

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Janice Caron wrote:
>> 2008/4/30 Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail>:
>>>  Also, is there a reason why these mutable functions shouldn't be in
>>> std.string, together with their invariant/const brethren?
>>
>> That's why we're having this discussion.
>>
>> The idea is that std.string can be optimised for invariant strings,
>> while std.stringbuffer could be optimised for mutable strings. There
>> are pros and cons for separate modules. I don't think Walter wants
>> std.string "polluted" by all these functions he doesn't much care for.
>> Also, it would be bad if mutable versions were called "by mistake"
>> with consequent unexpected behavior.
>>
> 
> "mutable versions were called "by mistake" "? I don't think that point 
> applies to D, after all, the purpose of the immutability system is for 
> the compiler to check that this won't happen, so unless there is some 
> compiler bug, that shouldn't happen in D.

What if you wanted a modified copy of the input, but that input happened 
to be mutable?

The modifying versions should have some distinguishing characteristic to 
separate them from the COW versions. I'd say either a different function 
name or an extra out-buffer parameter (as long as they still work if the 
buffer is the same array as the normal input).