Re: String != [Char]

On 03/26/2012 06:58 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Christian Siefkes wrote:

...

On 03/26/2012 05:50 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...

Normalization isn't quite enough unfortunately, as it does solve e.g.

upcase = map toUppper

You need all-at-once functions on strings (which we could add.) I'm just pointing out that most (all?) list functions do the wrong thing when used on Strings.

Hm, do you have any other examples besides toUpper/toLower?

length, cons, head, tail, filter, folds, anything that works on an element-by-element basis.

Hm, but aren't these all matters of Unicode normalization? Your argument seems to go in circles, since above you wrote: "Normalization isn't quite enough unfortunately".

I agree on the second part. As someone pointed out earlier, we should be careful in using the word character as the Unicode code point doesn't correspond well to the commonly used concept of a character.

Indeed, as Thomas pointed out, the term "Unicode character" is not well-defined, hence we should prefer the term "Unicode code point" which seems to come closest. What else should length return, if not the number of code points in a string (possibly after normalization)? What else should head or take x return, if not the first (x) code point(s) of a string (possibly after normalization)? Best regards Christian -- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian@siefkes.net ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true today may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow. -- Henry D. Thoreau, Walden