toString refactor in druntime

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/31/14 2:11 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 02:01:50PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 10/31/2014 12:07 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:04:24PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>> On 10/27/2014 12:42 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
>>>>> I'm planning on doing a pull request for druntime which rewrites
>>>>> every toString function within druntime to use the new sink
>>>>> signature. That way druntime would cause a lot less allocations
>>>>> which end up beeing garbage right away. Are there any objections
>>>>> against doing so? Any reasons why such a pull request would not get
>>>>> accepted?
>>>>
>>>> Why a sink version instead of an Output Range?
>>>
>>> To allow toString to be a virtual function, perhaps?
>>
>> Output ranges can be virtual functions. All an output range is is a
>> type with a "put" method.
>
> The problem is that you don't know the type of the output range in
> advance. So you'd have to templatize toString. Which means it can no
> longer be virtual.

Yah, for such stuff a delegate that takes a const(char)[] comes to mind. 
-- Andrei