On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:21 PM, wren ng thornton wrote: Text: break :: Text -> Text -> (Text, Text)
breakBy :: (Char -> Bool) -> Text -> (Text, Text) One consistency problem I see with this is that the ByteString versions
permit breaking on a disjunctive pattern (e.g., \c -> c=='a' || c=='q')
whereas the Text version would require multiple passes to perform these
queries, since it takes a Text instead of a (Text->Bool). See breakBy in the email you quoted. Other than that, I do agree with the philosophy of the "deliberate and
sensible" differences. Though, given the philosophy that these aren't
Char-wise operations, why does Text.breakBy accept a (Char->Bool)? Is this
just an optimization for common cases like breaking on Unicode-defined
whitespace codepoints? I kept breakBy in there because it is actually useful. I changed its name
because it's by far less common than "I want to break on a string".