An IO Streams Library

[Jason White via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 01:01:21 UTC, cym13 wrote:
> From what I can see without testing it, very nice work, thanks!
>
> More a little surprise than anything serious though, why did 
> you choose to go with "println" instead of "writeln" and such? 
> I find it more confusing than anything given phobos choice.

Thanks!

There are a couple reasons for using print/println/etc. over 
write/writeln/etc.:
  1. A module-level definition of write(Stream s, ...) would clash 
with the stream's definition of write(...).
  2. Do we mean text-serialization or byte-for-byte output when we 
say write()? With print(), it's clear that we want the arguments 
to be converted to a text representation and have that written 
that to the stream. With write(), it's clear we're writing out 
the binary representation to the stream.