The more interesting question

[Gor Gyolchanyan]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schveiguy at yahoo.com>wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:31:26 -0400, deadalnix <deadalnix at gmail.com> 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.
>
> -Steve
>

Aside from the string problem the very existence of this debate exposes a
fundamental flaw in the entire software engineering industry: heavy usage
of ancient crap.
If some library is so damned hard to refresh, then something's terribly
wrong with it. It's about damned time ancient libraries are thrown away.

-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120516/42e6977f/attachment.html>