Summary and call for discussion on text proposal

[wren ng thornton]

On 11/7/10 12:51 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Malcolm Wallace<malcolm.wallace at me.com>wrote:
>>
>>   Option 3
>>> --------
>>>
>>> breakStr :: Text           ->  Text ->  (Text, Text)
>>> breakChr :: (Char ->  Bool) ->  Text ->  (Text, Text)
>>>
>>> This give neither version the short name 'break', but gives both
>>> reasonably short names with a suffix to indicate the character
>>> predicate vs substring.
>>
>> As a compromise between options 1&  2, this option has merit.  It leaves
>> open the possibility that the signatures of the short names might yet be
>> decided at a later date.  If Bryan were willing to go with this option, I
>> would certainly support it.
>
> +1. I too think Option 3 has merit, if only because it resolves the current
> logjam, and still leaves open the possibility for consensus to be reached on
> the short names at some point in the future without either side feeling
> disadvantaged -- but do we really really have to randomly abbreviate Char
> and String?

+1 to resolving the logjam if the author is willing.

But also -1 for the random abbreviation. At the very least *Chr should 
be *Char. Making an abbreviation for a single character is unnecessary, 
unhelpful, and confusing. For *Str, at least the abbreviation has a 
meaningful effect in shortening things, but given that we're talking 
about Text and not String, why not go for *Text which is short, 
unabbreviated, and matches the type in question.

-- 
Live well,
~wren