On Wednesday, 2002-08-21, 09:52, CEST, Ketil Z. Malde wrote: > [...] > I don't particularly like 'octet' (probably because I find it a bit > pedantic, and it reminds me too much of committee decisions), and > would prefer hGetWord8 or even hGetByte/hGetWord.
hGetWord8 sounds better to me than hGetOctet, at least as long as we have nothing like type Octet = Word8. > Also, I find 'Array' a bit uncomfortable -- it's a list, isn't it? As I also said in my earlier mail. > But why not simply: > > hPutOctet (or Word, Word8, Byte) :: Handle -> Word8 -> IO () > hPutOctets (hPutWords, Bytes) :: Handle -> [Word8] -> IO () > and > hGetOctet :: Handle -> IO Word8 > hGetOctets :: Handle -> IO [Word8] -- hGetContents-alike It's nice to use just the plural of octet. But what I dislike a bit is that hPutOctets and hGetOctets don't really correspond to each other because hGetOctets isn't the "inversion" of hPutOctets. I mean, hGetOctets won't generally read exactly those octets an earlier invocation of hPutOctets put but occasionally more than these. > (I'd rather annotate the strict versions, lazy is usually the default) I think so, too. > I'd also like a 'readFile'-like function for octets, I find my > programs do a lot of their IO by lazily reading files, and being able > to bury all the handle-stuff is a good thing, IMHO. Good point. > [...] Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell