On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Freddie Manners <f.mann...@gmail.com> wrote: > To add my tuppence-worth on this, addressed to no-one in particular: > > (1) I think getting hung up on UTF-8 correctness is a distraction here. I > can't imagine anyone suggesting that the C/C++ standards removed support for > (char*) because it wasn't UTF-8 correct: sure, you'd recommend people use a > different type when it matters, but the language standard itself shouldn't > be driven by technical issues that don't affect most people most of the > time. I'm sure it's good engineering practice to worry about these things, > but the standard isn't there to encourage good engineering practice.
(I assume you mean Unicode correctness. UTF-8 is only one possible encoding. Also I'm not arguing for removing type String = [Char], I arguing why Text is better than String.) C++'s char* is morally equivalent of our ByteString, not Text. There's no standardized C++ Unicode string type, ICU's UnicodeString is perhaps the closest to one. -- Johan _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
