Replace core language HexStrings with library entity

[Baz via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 16 March 2015 at 21:32:45 UTC, Baz wrote:
> On Monday, 16 March 2015 at 16:45:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
>> On 3/16/15 9:29 AM, Baz wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 21:41:06 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>>>> Walter Bright:
>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, it needs to be a dropin replacement for 
>>>>> x"...", which
>>>>> returns a string/wstring/dstring.
>>>>
>>>> This is bad. 99% of the times you don't want a 
>>>> string/wstring/dstring
>>>> out of a hex string:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10454
>>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5909
>>>>
>>>> Bye,
>>>> bearophile
>>>
>>> this is the API that's about to be proposed, it named as 
>>> suggested by
>>> A.A., and it handles the two issues you point out:
>>>
>>> ---
>>> public string hexString(string hexData, bool putWhites = 
>>> false)()
>>> public string hexString(dstring hexData, bool putWhites = 
>>> false)()
>>> public string hexString(wstring hexData, bool putWhites = 
>>> false)()
>>>
>>> public ubyte[] hexBytes(string hexData)()
>>> public ubyte[] hexBytes(dstring hexData)()
>>> public ubyte[] hexBytes(wstring hexData)()
>>> ---
>>
>> (Drop the "public", this ain't Java.)
>>
>> I don't see a necessity for the input string having different 
>> widths; string is enough. There may be a necessity to choose 
>> the width of the output with changes in function name, e.g. 
>> hexWString and hexDString.
>>
>> That opens the question whether we want only ubyte[] for hex 
>> bytes or all integral types.
>>
>>> additionally to x string, a template parameter allows to put 
>>> raw whites,
>>> e.g
>>>
>>> ---
>>> assert(hexString!("30 30", true) == "0 1");
>>> assert(hexString!("30 31") == "01"); // standard x string
>>> ---
>>
>> I don't see a need for this.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I'd like to propose this:
>
> http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/044958878fd9
>
> But after reading D.Nadlinger mind about the whole thing i 
> realize that's the opposite the things should be done in the 
> opposite way.

still about

http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/044958878fd9

Despite of the personnal opinion over the idea of removing x 
strings from the lang and integrate them as a phobos template is 
there any particulur "no no no" that would automatically prevent 
this to be an acceptable PR (style, guidline, foreach vs range 
iterator, etc)?

Sorry to insist but this is the first time i try to propose 
something and i'm usually less strict with my own things.
Thx to reply, otherwise i give it up.