Should this work?

[Manu]

On 10 January 2014 02:36, Dicebot <public at dicebot.lv> wrote:

> On Thursday, 9 January 2014 at 16:22:08 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> It's nice that it's unicode correct, but it's not nice that you have to be
>> familiar with a massive amount of the standard library and you need to
>> search through 4-5 (huge! and often poorly documented) modules to find the
>> functions you need to perform _basic string operations_, like finding the
>> last instance of a character...
>>
>
> That I do agree. One idea is that once everything is split into smaller
> packages we can start providing meta-packages that do public imports of
> small sets of commonly used functions.
>
> Still once needed functions are found I do consider end result very robust
> for what it actually does and don't know any other language that does it
> better.
>
>
>  My standing opinion is that string manipulation in D is not nice, it is
>> possibly the most difficult and time consuming I have used in any language
>> ever. Am I alone?
>>
>
> Unicode is the doom. If you only keep ASCII in mind you statement is
> indeed true and D stuff seems ridiculously complicated compared even to
> plain C. But it has also teached me that _every single_ program I have
> written before in other languages was broken in regards to Unicode
> handling. So, yes, it is quite difficult but it is the cost for doing what
> no one else does - being correct out of the box. Well, at least in most
> scenarios :)
>

That's great and all, but it's no good if I have to pay for it (time and
money!) even when that's not a requirement. I'm dealing with ascii right
now.
At very least, there needs to be massive assistance. std.string should
probably offer a crap load of aliases and wrappers for common operations.
And I hate how std.algorithm looks in intellisense pop ups, you never have
any idea what types you're dealing with, everything is templates, many
levels deep.
And then it's riddled with these little wrappers around 'Impl' types, which
just adds more layers to the typing confusion.
I want string functions that deal with types like 'string', not
'Unqual!(ElementEncodingType!(ElementType!Range))[]'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140110/d3bb60d7/attachment-0001.html>