Le dimanche 27 septembre 2015 à 00:40 -0700, Daniel Carrera a écrit : > Why are we changing from String to AbstractString? Obviously, the > former is easier to type. Even if there are some changes to the guts > of the string implementation, I would have thought that you could > just keep the shorter name "String". That's exactly the point of the change: AbstractString shouldn't be used very often -- basically only to restrict the arguments type, as in f(s::AbstractString).
Then the default concrete type can be called String or Str, and that's what people will use. Calling the abstract type String was confusing as it could prompt people to write type-unstable fields believing that it was the concrete one. Regards
