std.stringbuffer

[Me Here]

Janice Caron wrote:

>
>But <shrugs> - if people don't want StringBuffers, who am I to argue?

What's in a name? Pre-conceptions of other worlds and other tools. 
Specifically Java.
Additionally, the casing suggests a class?

For my part, I simply want string functions that operate on char[]s.

Because, I percieve that for the type of mutations I am currently doing,
Invarient strings would incur too high a cost.

If your StringBuffer concept would accept and manipulate char[]s
and not require the instantiation, initialisation and syntax of an object.

By which I mean that if having used a string function upon my char[]
I can still apply slice operations to it using the standard syntax.
And then apply another string function, and then another slice.

Or even, apply a string function to a slice of a larger string and
mutate that larger string, in-place through the slice:

     char[] a = ...2000 chars from somewhere.

     char[] field1 = a[ 312 .. 357 ];
     field1.toUpper();

     char[] checksum = a[ $-16 ..  $ ];
     checksum = md5hex( a );
...

Then I will be very happy.

Beyond that, I have no requirements :)

All the stuff about warnings and internal and external lengths was just 
speclation
about what might be going on inside on the basis of what I know, have seen 
(Perl)
and have personally implemented. (Not Perl).

Cheers, b.

Ps. Is there a paper/article/reference on the reasoning behind Invariant 
strings somewhere?


--