On 03/23/2012 02:13 PM, ARJANEN Loïc Jean David wrote: > 2012/3/22 Greg Weber <g...@gregweber.info>: > But now we have at least two tasks to do before we can put up the > proposal: define what operations should be supported by String and > should we apply this proposal in the next batch. Given that this > proposal will break many codebases (we shouldn't hope to apply all of > list's syntax to this string type) should we apply it alone or wait > until we have more other codebase-breakers to apply ?
I very much hope that the Haskell committee will never ever accept a proposal that "will break many codebases"! That's what ruined Perl 6 und Python 3, and quite unnecessarily so. Even if I a future Haskell standard defines String as something that doesn't have to be implemented as a list of Char, it still would have to behave as if it was [Char] for most practical purposes (except performance-wise, of course!). That's necessary for compatibility. Or String could just be complemented with an additional standardized Text type, as Greg suggested. Best regards Christian -- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christ...@siefkes.net ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- Just so that nobody takes his guess for the full truth, here's my standing on "keeping control", in 2 words (three?): I won't. -- Linus Torvalds, The Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime