Proposal: clean up semantics of array literals vs string literals

[Don Clugston]

On 02/10/12 14:02, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 10/2/12, Don Clugston <dac at nospam.com> wrote:
>> A proposal to clean up this mess
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> Any compile-time value of type immutable(char)[] or const(char)[],
>> behaves a string literals currently do, and will have a \0 appended when
>> it is stored in the executable.
>>
>> ie,
>>
>> enum hello = ['H', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o', '\n'];
>> printf(hello);
>>
>> will work.
>
> What about these, will these pass?:
>
> enum string x = "foo";
> assert(x.length == 3);
>
> void test(string x) { assert(x.length == 3); }
> test(x);
>
> If these don't pass the proposal will break code.

Yes, they pass. The \0 is not included in the string length. It's 
effectively in the data segment, not in the string.