I am not trying to win an argument with anyone. Just trying to do what is best for the community. Many others here have a better grasp of the issue than me and can help answer questions and come up with a solution.
I am also not saying this proposal is done. A lot of thought and work is needed to ensure it can be implemented as smoothly as possible. It does seem though that everyone thinks it is a good proposal. On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, ARJANEN Loïc Jean David <arjanen.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 22/03/2012 04:29, Greg Weber a écrit : > >> This proposal seems fairly uncontroversial at the moment. I would >> really like it if someone more familiar with the proposal process can >> take this proposal up and help make sure it gets in the next batch. I >> can't even figure out how to create a wiki page for the proposal right >> now :) > > > Well, this proposal seems uncontroversial because we didn't arrive to the > difficult part: what operations should we define on this String type for it > to be useful. > Because with only this proposal as it stands now (String defined as an > implementation-defined newtype, a typeclass defined for conversion from/to > String and [Char] as an instance of this typeclass), we're in a worse > situation than before: not only String became useless given there is no > operations defined on it, the only mean we have to portably work with it is > to translate it to [Char] before doing anything. > So now, the fun part begins...what operations should String support ? I > propose obtaining the length of a String, taking a substring of a given size > beginning at a given index, taking the character at index i in a String, > concatenation, converting a string to upper/lower case and determining if a > string is contained in/a prefix/a suffix of another. > I am sure I am forgetting some useful operations and some operations I said > are better placed in the typeclass or in a typeclass instance or are > particular cases of general operations we should define rather than the > particular cases. So, what are the operations we should define according to > you ? > > > Regards, > ARJANEN Loïc > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime