Because it is the most utilitarian way to get a bunch of strict ByteStrings out of a lazy one.<br><br>Yes it exposes an implementation detail, but the alternatives involve an unnatural amount of copying.<br><br>-Edward Kmett<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Ashley Yakeley <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:ashley@semantic.org">ashley@semantic.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Ketil Malde wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Do we also want to modify equality for lazy bytestrings, where equality<br>
is currently independent of chunk segmentation?  (I.e.<br>
<br>
  toChunks s1 == toChunks s2 ==&gt; s1 == s2  <br>
but not vice versa.)<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Why is toChunks exposed?<br>
<br>
-- <br><font color="#888888">
Ashley Yakeley</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org" target="_blank">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>