const(Object)ref is here!

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:10:12 -0500, Bruno Medeiros  
<brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:

> On 06/12/2010 19:00, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Monday, December 06, 2010 05:41:42 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:44:07 -0500, spir<denis.spir at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:31:41 -0800
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan M Davis<jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  wrote:
>>>>> toString() (or writeFrom() or whatever
>>>>> it's going to become)
>>>>
>>>> guess it was writeTo() ;-) but "writeFrom" is nice as well, we should
>>>> find some useful use for it
>>>
>>> It was proposed as writeTo, but I'm not opposed to a different name.
>>
>> I have no problem with writeTo(). I just couldn't remember what it was  
>> and
>> didn't want to take the time to look it up, and the name isn't as  
>> obvious as
>> toString(), since it's not a standard name which exists in other  
>> languages, and
>> it isn't actually returning anything. Whether it's to or from would  
>> depend on
>> how you look at it - to the given delegate or from the object. But  
>> writeTo() is
>> fine. Once it's used, it'll be remembered.
>>
>
> I don't think it's entirely fine. It should at least have  
> "string"/"String" somewhere in the name. (I mentioned this on the other  
> original thread,  although late in time)

First, I'll say that it's not as important to me as it seems to be to you,  
and I think others feel the same way.  writeTo seems perfectly fine to me,  
and the 'string' part is implied by the char[] parameter for the delegate.

Changing the name to contain 'string' is fine as long as:

1) it's not toString.  This is already established as "returning a string"  
in both prior D and other languages.  I think this would be too confusing.
2) it's short.  I don't want writeAsStringTo or something similar.

What did you have in mind?

-Steve