[kris]

As suggested by Sean, here's a forum to discuss what would make a good String class. It seems there are a number of viewpoints upon this particular animal, so here's a few that we might discuss:

a) Fark String! We don'need no steenking classes!

b) Should there be multiple String classes for each of char/wchar/dchar?

c) A string Interface seems like a reasonable idea. What might it look like?

A second, related notion, is how to ensure certain common classes (String in particular) can be made compatible with one another. Right now there are two or three different implementations (Dool, Mango, and one other from an old NG post: one which I can't find anymore).

[Ant]

[larsivi]

I don't really have anything against string classes, but then I don't really see the need for it either (that is a personal opinion, I might slump into needing it anyway).

The pros of a string class in D:

- Encapsulation of similar functionality, that is, string functions.
- The possibility to hide the three types. One class for each string types sounds altogether wrong.

- Oh, and for those OO-afficinados out there it might be nice. I believe that the need to keep to one regime is a leftover from people that have done to much of either Java or C programming.

I wouldn't mind to have a (one, not three) really good string class in Ares, though.

[Ant]

[kris]

[sean]

Ares was meant to be a replacement for Phobos, or at least a replacement of the standard library portion of Phobos, so it would be a good place for a String class if folks wanted one.

Personally, I don't see a need for a String class. I would rather have standalone utility functions than bundle them in a class. But I think an argument could be made for a String class in terms of interface consistency. Could someone explain why having a string class would be so useful? I don't want to oppose the idea outright just because I haven't considered all the angles.

[larsivi]

[larsivi]

Heh, putting the little one to bed took time.. I wasn't aware that a couple of other posts slipped in between You kinda stole my thoughts, sean

[Ant]

[larsivi]

But both Ares (and Phobos) is meant to have a common interface across all platforms (at least that's my vision).

[Ant]

[sean]

Er, Ares or Phobos would be the standard library for D and therefore would be at a lower level than POSIX libraries or anything else (assiming you mean POSIX support written in D and not into the OS itself). But if you'd rather do it in another venue that's fine with me.

[Ant]

[larsivi]

I suppose we're off topic now, but what the heck;

Ares is NOT Phobos (that was the whole point of it), but we wanted to take the stuff that's good from Phobos if possible. I think it might be relevant to have a discussion (another?) over whether Ares should provide both procedural and OO-support wherever both is possible. This would probably mean an OO-wrapper over the procedural functions, making that solution somewhat less 'perfect'. It would be the easier way considering mantainence, at least.

[Ant]