A few general thoughts

[KennyTM~]

On May 1, 11 21:23, lenochware wrote:
> == Quote from KennyTM~ (kennytm at gmail.com)'s article
>
>> You could use x"" string, or just escape those characters
>>       auto x = x"f1f2f3 f4";
>>       auto y = "\xf1\xf2\xf3\xf4";
>> (And if your "string" is not a UTF-8 string at all, you should use a
>> ubyte[], not char[].
>>       const(ubyte)[] z = [0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf3, 0xf4];
>>       auto t = cast(const(ubyte)[]) x"f1f2f3f4";
>> )
>
> It would be very unclean write strings this way, but it is not so important.

It's very *unportable* to write a string in your way. Not every 
editor/OS default to ISO-8859-1 when an encoding is not found (say 
Notepad.exe), and your source file is likely destroyed because when I 
"Save As..." it all those 'åéüîø' becomes '?????', or the file is 
re-encoded into UTF-8, and the program will think you've actually 
written 'åéüîø'.

(Of course that also happens to UTF-8. Therefore it's best to restrict 
to ASCII only.)

 > The point is that I don't like features which cannot be disabled. For 
example
> variables in D are initialized, which is good, but you can write int i = void; and
> disable it. The final decision is on the programmer. You are not forced to do it
> only one "good" way.

If D allowed non-UTF encoding without error, it's possible that a string 
in those settings got misinterpreted, but it's not easy to determine when.

That's different from '= void' or 'cast' is those are *explicit*.

> This is philosophy which I like.
> Of course, I understand that it is not possible make everything optional, it has
> negatives, like everything has, but if there are serious doubts about some feature
> and it is not big deal to make it optional, it SHOULD be optional. At least I
> think so.

Yes it's possible that DMD add a -wno-utf-warning switch. But you'd have 
better chance convincing Walter to split the different -w options :).