why is string not implicit convertable to const(char*) ?

[Wouter Verhelst]

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch> writes:

> On 07/06/2012 02:57 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> To be fair, there are a _few_ areas in which zero-terminated strings may
>> possibly outperform zero-terminated strings (appending data in the case
>> where you know the memory block is large enough, for instance).
>
> It is impossible to know that the memory block is large enough unless
> the length of the string is known. But it isn't.

Sure it is, but not by looking at the string itself.

Say you have a string that contains some data you need, and some other
data you don't. I.e., you want to throw out parts of the string.

You could allocate a memory block that's as large as the original string
(so you're sure you've got enough space), and then start memcpy'ing
stuff into the new memory block from the old string.

This way you're sure you won't overrun your zero-terminated string, and
you'll be a slight bit faster than you would be with a bounded string.

I'll readily admit I haven't don't this all that often, though :-)

>> But they're far and few between, and it would indeed be silly to switch to
>> zero-terminated strings.
>
> There is no string manipulation that is significantly faster with
> zero-terminated strings.

Correct -- but only because you said "significantly".

-- 
The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:

pi zz a