The Case Against Autodecode

[Seb via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 21:39:14 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 16:34:49 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>> On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 16:25:20 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> D1 -> D2 was a vastly more disruptive change than getting rid 
>>> of auto-decoding would be.
>>
>> Don't be so sure. All string handling code would become 
>> broken, even if it appears to work at first.
>
> Assuming silent breakage is on the table, what would be broken, 
> really?
>
> Code that must intentionally count or otherwise operate code 
> points, sure. But how much of all string handling code is like 
> that?
>
> Perhaps it would be worth trying to silently remove 
> autodecoding and seeing how much of Phobos breaks, as an 
> experiment. Has this been tried before?
>
> (Not saying this is a route we should take, but it doesn't seem 
> to me that it will break "all string handling code" either.)

132 lines in Phobos use auto-decoding - that should be fixable ;-)

See them: http://sprunge.us/hUCL
More details: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4384