On 03/23/2012 02:13 PM, ARJANEN Loïc Jean David wrote: > 2012/3/22 Greg Weber <[email protected]>: > 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 ------- [email protected] -------
| 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 [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
