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. -- Viktor.