www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - toString vs toUtf8???

reply davidl <davidl 126.com> writes:
I really don't get why there was an argument about it.
Obviously tango team chose a bad name. toUtf8 has nothing to do with  
enforcing a
string to utf8 encoded. Thus, toUtf8 is misleading. And as a library API ,  
the
design goal is to make each API simple. And design is a process of solving  
problems.
While solving problems needs to decompose. It's a common sense to  
decompose problems.
But why when we come to this toString and toUtf8, we forget to decompose??

Decompose toUtf8 -> we get toString -> Encode_String_Utf8

Someone might argue toString is too long to type. But toStr is even  
shorter than toUtf8

-- 
使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Dec 16 2007
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"davidl" <davidl 126.com> wrote in message news:op.t3gmbbugeb62bo lzg...
 I really don't get why there was an argument about it.
 Obviously tango team chose a bad name. toUtf8 has nothing to do with 
 enforcing a
 string to utf8 encoded. Thus, toUtf8 is misleading. And as a library API , 
 the
 design goal is to make each API simple. And design is a process of solving 
 problems.
 While solving problems needs to decompose. It's a common sense to 
 decompose problems.
 But why when we come to this toString and toUtf8, we forget to decompose??

 Decompose toUtf8 -> we get toString -> Encode_String_Utf8

 Someone might argue toString is too long to type. But toStr is even 
 shorter than toUtf8

What?
Dec 16 2007
parent Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "davidl" <davidl 126.com> wrote in message news:op.t3gmbbugeb62bo lzg...
 I really don't get why there was an argument about it.
 Obviously tango team chose a bad name. toUtf8 has nothing to do with 
 enforcing a
 string to utf8 encoded. Thus, toUtf8 is misleading. And as a library API , 
 the
 design goal is to make each API simple. And design is a process of solving 
 problems.
 While solving problems needs to decompose. It's a common sense to 
 decompose problems.
 But why when we come to this toString and toUtf8, we forget to decompose??

 Decompose toUtf8 -> we get toString -> Encode_String_Utf8

 Someone might argue toString is too long to type. But toStr is even 
 shorter than toUtf8

What?

Second. - Gregor Richards
Dec 16 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent Paul Findlay <r.lph50+d gmail.com> writes:
davidl wrote:
 Obviously tango team chose a bad name.

Dec 16 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org> writes:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:09:19 -0500
"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote:

 "davidl" <davidl 126.com> wrote in message
 news:op.t3gmbbugeb62bo lzg...
 I really don't get why there was an argument about it.
 Obviously tango team chose a bad name. toUtf8 has nothing to do
 with enforcing a
 string to utf8 encoded. Thus, toUtf8 is misleading. And as a
 library API , the
 design goal is to make each API simple. And design is a process of
 solving problems.
 While solving problems needs to decompose. It's a common sense to 
 decompose problems.
 But why when we come to this toString and toUtf8, we forget to
 decompose??

 Decompose toUtf8 -> we get toString -> Encode_String_Utf8

 Someone might argue toString is too long to type. But toStr is even 
 shorter than toUtf8

What?

no u! -- Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org>
Dec 16 2007
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
davidl wrote:
 
 I really don't get why there was an argument about it.
 Obviously tango team chose a bad name. toUtf8 has nothing to do with 
 enforcing a string to utf8 encoded. Thus, toUtf8 is misleading.

How so? If someone wants to return a string using a different encoding, they can use a different function name. Given that D has "standardized" on Unicode, I think it's a fair assertion that the default encoding should be Unicode. Sean
Dec 17 2007