const(Object)ref is here!

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 21/12/2010 19:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/21/10 12:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:10:12 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
>> <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2010 19:00, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 06, 2010 05:41:42 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:44:07 -0500, spir<denis.spir at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:31:41 -0800
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan M Davis<jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> toString() (or writeFrom() or whatever
>>>>>>> it's going to become)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> guess it was writeTo() ;-) but "writeFrom" is nice as well, we should
>>>>>> find some useful use for it
>>>>>
>>>>> It was proposed as writeTo, but I'm not opposed to a different name.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with writeTo(). I just couldn't remember what it
>>>> was and
>>>> didn't want to take the time to look it up, and the name isn't as
>>>> obvious as
>>>> toString(), since it's not a standard name which exists in other
>>>> languages, and
>>>> it isn't actually returning anything. Whether it's to or from would
>>>> depend on
>>>> how you look at it - to the given delegate or from the object. But
>>>> writeTo() is
>>>> fine. Once it's used, it'll be remembered.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think it's entirely fine. It should at least have
>>> "string"/"String" somewhere in the name. (I mentioned this on the
>>> other original thread, although late in time)
>>
>> First, I'll say that it's not as important to me as it seems to be to
>> you, and I think others feel the same way. writeTo seems perfectly fine
>> to me, and the 'string' part is implied by the char[] parameter for the
>> delegate.
>>
>> Changing the name to contain 'string' is fine as long as:
>>
>> 1) it's not toString. This is already established as "returning a
>> string" in both prior D and other languages. I think this would be too
>> confusing.
>> 2) it's short. I don't want writeAsStringTo or something similar.
>>
>> What did you have in mind?
>>
>> -Steve
>
> Conversion to text should be called toText. That makes the essence of
> the function visible (it emits characters) without tying the
> representation of the text.
>
> Andrei

I don't understand this point. The representation of the text is tied, 
it's going to be char[] ( aka UTF-8). Unless you were planning to have 
overloads of toText, but that sounds like an awful idea.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer