const(Object)ref is here!

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/27/11 9:33 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 21/12/2010 19:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/21/10 12:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Conversion to text should be called toText. That makes the essence of
>> the function visible (it emits characters) without tying the
>> representation of the text.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I don't understand this point. The representation of the text is tied,
> it's going to be char[] ( aka UTF-8). Unless you were planning to have
> overloads of toText, but that sounds like an awful idea.

Could be wchar or dchar.

Andrei