Just because it's a slow Thursday on this forum

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 02/11/2016 04:44 PM, John Colvin wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 21:38:42 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:38:42PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky via
>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2016 11:22 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> >[...]
>>>
>>> My understanding is that's the whole point of the "dump" function
>>> being discussed. Unless I misunderstood?
>>
>> IMO `dump` is worthwhile but `print` seems little more than an alias
>> for `writefln`. I can't find enough justification to warrant `print`.
>> (Next thing you know, newbies will be asking why there's both `print`
>> and `write` that do the same thing except different.)
>>
>>
>> T
>
> yeah, dump is really useful, print is a bit marginal.

Ahh, I missed the "print" stuff. I do agree it's not as useful as 
"dump", plus the name seems to suggest a connection with printf, which 
strikes me as confusing.

I do think the "print" function discussed (ie, like writeln, but 
auto-inserts spaces between the args) is occasionally nice for 
script-like programs. In fact, I think I have a function like that in 
Scriptlike specifically because of that...unless it's back in my older 
utility library instead...

I'd be perfectly happy to have it, particularly if it had a less 
confusing name, but can definitely see it being debatable whether it 
really is Phobos-worthy.