toString vs. toUtf8

[Kris]

"Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>>>> Only if you have recognized wstring and dstring as good names for those
>>>> aliases <g>
>>> They'd be consistent with wchar and dchar.
>>
>> Right ... now I don't like those either ;)
>
> What can I say? !!

hehe

Well, perhaps it's worth noting that all of these names are probably a 
cousin of "hungarian notation", since the name is being decorated with some 
kind of indicator of what it represents? The question perhaps should be - 
why is that? If we speculate, for a moment, that the language supported 
overload on return type:

char[] toString();
wchar[] toString();
dchar[] toString();

then, there would be no issue here. Right? However, we don't have 
overload-on-return-type, so it seems to me that the decorated names are a 
means to work around that. Does that seem logical?  Perhaps what we're 
seeing here, Walter, is a measure of distaste for the notion of 
decorated-names?