Gwern Branwen wrote:

Network.URI.escapeURIString is pretty much always used to make a String a URL or a part of a URL.

The existing definition http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.10.4/html/libraries/network/Network-URI.ht... forces one to do extra work by having to specify a `Char -> Bool`.

More than a few packages & libraries simply define an 'escape' function `escapeURIString isAllowedInURI` (either inline or as a named function). This sort of repetition is unfortunate.

Hmmm... I think that's not strictly correct - it should be 'escapeURIString isUnescapedInURI'. The form used above would leave literal '%' characters unescaped.

The name 'escape' is commonly used to express exactly that functionality: http://holumbus.fh-wedel.de/hayoo/hayoo.html#0:escape

What would people say to adding such a function?

The reason that the 'escapeURIString' always takes the Char -> Bool function is that the rules for escaping can very between URI schemes, and between components within a single URI. For example, a literal '/' or '?' appearing within a path segment in an http: URI would need to be escaped, but that's not included by the common case of 'escapeURIString isUnescapedInURI'. The 'isAllowedInURI' function, IIRC, is a kind of least-common-denominator function that causes non-URI characters to be escaped so that the resulting string is at least syntactically valid according to RFC3986. But in some cases (i.e. for some schemes) this may not be enough - see RFC 3986, section 2.1 ("A percent-encoding mechanism is used to represent a data octet in a component when that octet's corresponding character is outside the allowed set or is being used as a delimiter of, or within, the component" -- http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-2.1 ); see also section 2.4. So, while one could define an additional function as you suggest, I'm not sure it is necessarily wise, because having the explicit function to designate characters to be escaped does at least draw attention to exactly which characters would be escaped in the context of use. But OTOH, if implementations tend to use 'escapeURIString isAllowedInURI' as you say, maybe this just creates an opportunity for additional errors. URI escaping is, to some extent, a necessarily messy and error-prone business - it's really hard to define a generic escaping mechanism that neatly covers all eventualities, because of the multiple stages of interpretation that can take place when actually using a URI. #g