Should this work?

[Regan Heath]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:49:30 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 1/28/14 3:28 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:19:54 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>> Walter doesn't like writing libraries so when he first defined Phobos'
>>> string support he simply took the string functions in Python and Ruby
>>> and implemented them. That didn't work well at all, in spite of the
>>> functions having the same names and semantics.
>>
>> What specifically didn't work?  All I can recall are UTF and slicing
>> issues, some of which remain with us today.
>
> Problem is what we had was a crappy strings API because it used none of  
> D's inherent advantages. What we have now is much better.

Sure, but it would be better still if the commonly expected names for  
routines were present.. is all I'm saying.  I am certainly not suggesting  
we go back to a bad API, I am just saying there are some functions people  
expect to see, and they're not there, and that is frustrating; perhaps  
enough to put someone off.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/