The Case Against Autodecode

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/30/2016 9:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/30/16 5:51 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 5/30/2016 8:34 AM, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>> In an ideal world, we'd also want to change the way `length` and
>>> `opIndex` work,
>>
>> Why? strings are arrays of code units. All the trouble comes from
>> erratically pretending otherwise.
>
> That's not an argument.

Consistency is a factual argument, and autodecode is not consistent.


> Objects are arrays of bytes, or tuples of their fields,
> etc. The whole point of encapsulation is superimposing a more structured view on
> top of the representation. Operating on open-heart representation is risky, and
> strings are no exception.

If there is an abstraction for strings that is efficient, consistent, useful, 
and hides the fact that it is UTF, I am not aware of it. Autodecoding is not it.