<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
From: Roman Leshchinskiy <<a href="mailto:rl@cse.unsw.edu.au">rl@cse.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
<br>
On 17/10/2010, at 21:25, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Malcolm Wallace <<a href="mailto:malcolm.wallace@me.com">malcolm.wallace@me.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> The breakSubstring functionality is semantically:<br>
> breakSubstring x = break (==x)<br>
> although there may be a more efficient implementation.<br>
> Proposal: rename Text.break to Text.breakSubstring, and Text.breakBy to Text.break.<br>
><br>
> So far, I've been proceeding on the basis that I'd like naming to be consistent and descriptive, and to have more commonly used functions get shorter names than their less commonly used (but possibly more general) cousins. For instance, breakSubstring is descriptive, and it's consistent with bytestring, but it's much longer than break, even though breaking on a fixed string is more common. In this case, length and frequency of use trump the other considerations in my mind.<br>
<br>
FWIW, I take almost exactly the opposite approach with vector. I try to follow the list/array interface as closely as possible even in the presence of more frequently used but subtly different operations. My rationale is that typing a few extra characters is vastly preferable to having to search through the docs to find out what this particular library calls this particular function.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I think there's a significant difference between vector and text, namely a Vector is conceptually the same as a list/1D array, while a Text is not. I think this difference is enough to warrant a break from the list API.<br>
<br>John<br></div></div>