There are bytearray literal proposals [1,2]. My older proposal [2] idea that the literal prim literal strings could generate also ByteArray# and (# Int#, Addr# #), but as it was proposing to change how literal Haskell Strings are compiled the proposal got stalled. The newew proposal [1] is tagged as "needs revision". It doesn't include(# Int#, Addr# #), but those are easy to get from ByteArray# which has negligible overhead. I haven't followed the discussion so I'm not sure what syntax it actually proposes (description and proposal text differ) and what are the needed revisions.
I'm cc-ing Andew, he knows better :) - Oleg [1] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/292 [2] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/135 On 25.8.2021 18.31, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 09:03:30AM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > I originally wrote: > >>>> Is there any GHC syntax for constructing a primitive string literal >>>> with a known (not hand coded) byte count? >>>> With `"some bytes"#` I get just the `Addr#` pointer, but not the size. >>>> >>>> If there's nothing available, would it be reasonable to introduce a new >>>> syntax? >>>> Perhaps: >>>> >>>> "some bytes"## :: (# Addr#, Int# #) > But neglected to mention that I knew about `cstringLength#`, but found > it wanting, because it does not support octet-strings with embedded NUL > characters: > >> Sadly, that does not work when the primitive octet string contains >> internal NUL bytes. >> >> λ> :set -package ghc-prim >> λ> :set -XMagicHash >> λ> import GHC.CString >> λ> import GHC.Int >> λ> >> λ> I# (cstringLength# "foobar\xa0"#) >> 7 >> λ> I# (cstringLength# "foo\0bar\xa0"#) >> 3 > If there isn't some other extant work-around, any feedback on my > proposal of a new syntax for a primitive unboxed (address, length) pair: > > "some bytes"## :: (# Addr#, Int# #) > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
