Proposal: ByteString based datagram communication (Ticket #1238 )

Robert Marlow rob at
Thu Apr 5 20:41:57 EDT 2007

I suspected in my sleepy state last night that overwriting all instances
of my original patch with this new one would probably come back to bite
me. I probably shouldn't have ignored that gut instinct.

Thanks for the rant, Duncan. That clears up a bunch of things for me
regarding how ByteStrings are intended to be used.

I had written the original patch with lazy bytestrings because I had
integration with Data.Binary in mind and wanted to make it as simple for
that as possible. But I do see the merit in your argument for just using
strict ByteStrings; it didn't feel quite right making trivial
conversions between strict and lazy bytestrings when I was doing it.

So then. If I revert to a patch similar to the one I originally had only
using strict ByteStrings would it raise any further concerns (besides
out-of-scope concerns such as a nice coherent string class interface).

Robert Marlow
MITS Co-operative Limited

More information about the Libraries mailing list