On 26 March 2012 13:29, Christian Siefkes christ...@siefkes.net wrote:
On 03/26/2012 01:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
It is not the precision of Char or char that is the issue here.
It has been clarified at several points that Char is not a Unicode character,
but a Unicode code point. Not
On 24 March 2012 12:53, Henrik Nilsson n...@cs.nott.ac.uk wrote:
Hi all,
Thomas Schilling wrote:
I think most here agree that the main advantage of the current
definition is only pedagogical.
But that in itself is not a small deal. In fact, it's a pretty
major advantage.
Moreover
On 24 March 2012 20:16, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
Hi Johan,
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:50:10AM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Heinrich Apfelmus
apfel...@quantentunnel.de wrote:
Which brings me to the fundamental question behind this proposal: Why do we
On 24 March 2012 22:27, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 05:31:48PM -0400, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 16:16, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:50:10AM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
Using list-based operations on Strings are
On 24 March 2012 22:15, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 08:38:23PM +, Thomas Schilling wrote:
On 24 March 2012 20:16, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
Correctness
==
Using list-based operations on Strings are almost always wrong
Data.Text
On 18 March 2012 19:29, ARJANEN Loïc Jean David arjanen.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Good point, but rather than specifying in the standard that the new string
type should be the Text datatype, maybe the new definition should be that
String is a newtype with suitable operations defined on it, and
