<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Donn Cave <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donn@avvanta.com">donn@avvanta.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Am I confused about this? It's why I can't see Text ever being</div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
simply the obvious choice. [Char] will continue to be the obvious<br>
choice if you want a functional data type that supports pattern<br>
matching etc.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Actually, with view patterns, Text is pretty nice to pattern match against:</div><div><br></div><div>foo (uncons -> Just (c,cs)) = "whee"</div><div><br></div><div>
despam (prefixed "spam" -> Just suffix) = "whee" `mappend` suffix</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">ByteString will continue to be the obvious choice<br>
for big data loads.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Don't confuse "I have big data" with "I need bytes". If you are working with bytes, use bytestring. If you are working with text, outside of a few narrow domains you should use text.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> We'll have a three way choice between programming<br>
elegance, correctness and efficiency. If Haskell were more than<br>
just a research language, this might be its most prominent open<br>
sore, don't you think?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, that's just FUD. </div></div>