Re: Summary and call for discussion on text proposal

On 11/7/10 12:51 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Malcolm Wallacewrote:

...

Option 3

...

--------

breakStr :: Text -> Text -> (Text, Text) breakChr :: (Char -> Bool) -> Text -> (Text, Text)

This give neither version the short name 'break', but gives both reasonably short names with a suffix to indicate the character predicate vs substring.

As a compromise between options 1& 2, this option has merit. It leaves open the possibility that the signatures of the short names might yet be decided at a later date. If Bryan were willing to go with this option, I would certainly support it.

+1. I too think Option 3 has merit, if only because it resolves the current logjam, and still leaves open the possibility for consensus to be reached on the short names at some point in the future without either side feeling disadvantaged -- but do we really really have to randomly abbreviate Char and String?

+1 to resolving the logjam if the author is willing. But also -1 for the random abbreviation. At the very least *Chr should be *Char. Making an abbreviation for a single character is unnecessary, unhelpful, and confusing. For *Str, at least the abbreviation has a meaningful effect in shortening things, but given that we're talking about Text and not String, why not go for *Text which is short, unabbreviated, and matches the type in question. -- Live well, ~wren