On 21 feb 2008, at 15.26, Devin Mullins wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:21:50AM +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote:
So I'm claiming that the single impl with boundary conversion
gives us
the best of both worlds, no code bloat due to specialisation and
working
with whichever string type you like, by converting it at the
beginning
and end. Of course only an experiment can say either way.
I think his point is that if I'm using three libraries, each of which
uses a different String type, that's a lot of boundaries. Perhaps
worse
yet, if I'm a library author and I want to be a good citizen, I
have to
write three versions of my code (or create my own StringLike
typeclass).
I know of an example off-hand:
http://nominolo.blogspot.com/2007/05/networkhttp-bytestrings.html
(Of course, as I read that, I see that the lazy code is different from
the strict code, but I'll just ignore that for the sake of, uh,
argument.)
Yes it does use different implementations, but the lazy interface has
it's problems (leakage of handles, unclosed connections, and more).
But what we really want is, as Duncan and Roman suggested, *one*
standard, optimizable representation and conversions from and to it.
This would work perfectly well with sockets.
/ Thomas
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
