dmd foreach loops throw exceptions on invalid UTF sequences, use replacementDchar instead

[max haughton]

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 06:15:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/4/2021 9:11 PM, max haughton wrote:
>> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 04:02:44 UTC, Walter Bright 
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2021 7:41 PM, Mathias LANG wrote:
>>>> If you want to fix it, just deprecate the special case and 
>>>> tell people to use `foreach (dchar d; 
>>>> someString.byUTF!(dchar, No.useReplacementDchar))` and voilà.
>>>> And if they don't want it to throw, it's shorter:
>>>> `foreach (dchar d; someString.byUTF!dchar)` (or `byDChar`).
>>>
>>> People will always gravitate towards the smaller, simpler 
>>> syntax. Like [] instead of std::vector<>.
>> 
>> I have never observed this mistake in any C++ cod,
>
> You've never observed people write:
>
>    int array[3];
>
> in C++ code?
>
>> unless you mean as a point of language design.
>
> D (still) has a rather verbose way of doing lambdas. People 
> constantly complained that D didn't have lambdas. Until the => 
> syntax was added, and suddenly lambdas in D became noticed and 
> useful.
>
>
>> This decision should be guided by how current D programmers 
>> act rather than a hyperreal ideal of someone encountering the 
>> language.
>
> The only reason D's associative arrays continue to exist is 
> because they are so darned syntactically convenient.
>
> I've seen over and over and over that syntactic convenience 
> matters a lot.

I have never ever seen someone use a static array by mistake, is 
what I meant, vector doesn't do the same thing as []. It's more 
common in (so-called) modern C++ to see std::array these days 
than a raw static array in certain contexts since you still  want 
a constant length buffer but want iterators etc..