Marc Weber wrote:
wren ng thornton wrote:
I'd just stick with one (with a module for hiding the conversions, as desired). Duplicating the code introduces too much room for maintenance and compatibility issues.
That's the big thing. The more people that use ByteStrings the less need there is to convert when combining libraries. That said, ByteStrings aren't a panacea; lists and laziness are very useful.
Hi wren,
In the second paragraph you agree that there will be less onversion when using only one type of strings.
You're also right about encoding. About laziness you'r partially right: There is also Bytestring.Lazy which is a basically a list of (non lazy) Bytestring
Sure, but lazy bytestrings are still chunk-wise strict. Sometimes even that isn't lazy enough (more often with non-string kinds of lists, granted). -- Live well, ~wren