Crazy suggestion for dealing with the naming disaster that is ByteString

Merijn Verstraaten merijn at
Sun Jan 28 11:26:22 UTC 2018

Ok, so every so often I've seen people bring up that we really should've called ByteString type Bytes to avoid a whole lot of newbie confusion, but we can't change it now, because it'd break everything.

But would it really break everything? What's to stop us from creating a new package "bytes" which is just a copy of the bytestring source with ByteString renamed to Bytes, then turning the bytestring package into a shim that re-exports all of the bytes package with an added type alias "type ByteString = Bytes".

Anything depending on bytestring right now should just compile as is. Sure, we'd probably be stuck with bytestring as shim package for the next 10 years or so while the ecosystem slowly transitions to "bytes", but maintaining a shim package like that should be near zero work and we'd avoid being stuck with this terribly misleading name forever.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 874 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list