String != [Char]

[Henrik Nilsson]

Hi all,

 > True, but should the language definition default to a string type
 > that is one the most unsuited for text processing in the 21st
 > century where global multilingualism abounds?  Even C has qualms
 > about that.

Even if we accept these allegation (and I think they are greatly
exaggerated), a reasonable position would be yes, for reasons of
simplicity and backwards compatibility, given that just the change
of default definition of "String" in itself is hardly going to do
anything to make it easier to write software that truly can cope
with any language. The latter requires tools, libraries, and
knowledge well beyond what reasonably should go into any programming
language standard.

 > I have no doubt believing that if all texts my students have to
 > process are US ASCII, [Char] is more than sufficient.  So, I have
 > sympathy for your position.  However,  I doubt [Char] would be
 > adequate if I ask them to shared texts from their diverse cultures.
 > Should the language definition make it much harder to share such
 > experience in classroom when the primary argument for [Char]
 > is pedagogy?

The primary argument is to not break something that works well
for most purposes, including teaching, at a huge cost of backwards
compatibility for marginal if any real benefits.

What would be helpful here is if you could clarify exactly what
would stop someone using a library like Text in an exercise like
the one you outline above if String = [Char] remains in the language.

Best,

/Henrik

-- 
Henrik Nilsson
School of Computer Science
The University of Nottingham
nhn at cs.nott.ac.uk