Summary and call for discussion on text proposal
wren ng thornton
wren at freegeek.org
Sun Nov 7 19:16:22 EST 2010
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.
More information about the Libraries