The more interesting question

Steven Schveighoffer schveiguy at
Wed May 16 06:25:40 PDT 2012

On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:31:26 -0400, deadalnix <deadalnix at> wrote:

> Le 15/05/2012 17:51, Christophe a écrit :
>> deadalnix , dans le message (digitalmars.D:167404), a écrit :
>>> This looks to me like a bad practice. C string and D string are
>>> different beasts, and we have toStringz .
>> C string and D string are different, but it's not a bad idea to have
>> string *literals* that works for both C and D strings, otherwise using
>> printf will lead to a bug each time the programmer forget the trailing
>> \0.
> Due to slicing, it is already unsafe to pass a D string to C code. The  
> main problem is array casting silently to pointers, making the error  
> easy to do.

How so?  strings are immutable, and literals are *truly* immutable.

> Fixing the problem for literal isn't going to solve it at all.
> The real solution is toStringz

toStringz can allocate a new block in order to ensure 0 gets added.  This  
is ludicrous!

You are trying to tell me that any time I want to call a C function with a  
string literal, I have to first heap-allocate it, even though I *know*  
it's safe.

I don't see a "problem" anywhere.  The current system is perfect for what  
it needs to do.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list