Andrew: There is a ListLike package, which does this nice abstraction. but I don't know if it is ready for and/or enough complete for serious usage. I´m thinking into using it for the same reasons.
Anyone has some experiences to share about it? 2012/11/10 Andrew Pennebaker <andrew.penneba...@gmail.com> > Frequently when I'm coding in Haskell, the crux of my problem is > converting between all the stupid string formats. > > You've got String, ByteString, Lazy ByteString, Text, [Word], and on and > on... I have to constantly lookup how to convert between them, and the > overloaded strings GHC directive doesn't work, and sometimes > ByteString.unpack doesn't work, because it expects [Word8], not [Char]. > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! > > Haskell is a wonderful playground for experimentation. I've started to > notice that many Hackage libraries are simply instances of typeclasses > designed a while ago, and their underlying implementations are free to play > around with various optimizations... But they ideally all expose the same > interface through typeclasses. > > Can we do the same with String? Can we pick a good compromise of lazy vs > strict, flexible vs fast, and all use the same data structure? My vote is > for type String = [Char], but I'm willing to switch to another data > structure, just as long as it's consistently used. > > -- > Cheers, > > Andrew Pennebaker > www.yellosoft.us > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > -- Alberto.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe