Hello Allan,
And that is the actual problem. The string type is not broken. It just is not a text type.
I very much like this formulation! To me, the crucial difference is that strings need *parsing* -- however simple, e.g., special handling for escape characters and separators -- to become interpretable text.
And this parsing is what's broken. A classification of such kinds of "string to text" pasring might help properly frame and resolve this issue.
And most often, there is no text type in the standard library despite of practical needs in a world full of text!
I suppose that the reason may be that the required parsing is considered elementary, and elementary almost always means "dealt with in an ad-hoc way".
Thanks, --Sergey _______________________________________________ langsec-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.langsec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/langsec-discuss
