Bikeshedding the cstringLength name?
ietf-dane at dukhovni.org
Tue Jan 26 04:59:18 UTC 2021
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:09:01PM -0800, Edward Kmett wrote:
> [...Sound argument for consistency of style...]
> Names matching primitives modulo a hash is pretty universal as well.
Just on this one point, the reason I contemplated something different
than `cstringLength` and was led to `bytestring` as a possible model,
was because the primop is differs subtly from the new lifted function
by being "pure" (and is then only safe for compiled-in constants).
Since the proposed lifted variant changes not only the levity but also
the purity, I thought it worth asking whether that could be a source of
confusion, with some users accidentally misusing the primop, expecting
only a difference in levity. But likely I let my imagination run wild.
The proposed name is fine.
More information about the Libraries