This may be a non-problem in practice, but ...
Regarding the Str data type, which Perl 6 defines as holding a
compact sequence of characters, I'm thinking that this type's current
name is ambiguous considering the traditional uses of the word.
Traditionally, a "string" isn't necessarily a sequence of characters,
but could also be a sequence of octets or bits or other things. A
lot of programmers can see the word "string" and think of that term
in its more broad sense.
I'm wondering if it would not be inappropriate to change the name Str
to something more descriptive of its content within the historical or
current wider context.
For example, would the name Text be any worse? In my mind, that is
less ambiguous and specifies a string of characters rather than a
string of bytes.
Moreover, the general public better understands the meaning of the
word Text than string, which could help in some small way to bringing
new people to the language. (And Perl 6 is meant to be more
ideomatic like human languages, within reason, is it not?)
Of course, "Character String" or "Char Str" or "Char Data" would also
be unambiguous, but that is two words, and all our built-in types are
composed of 1 word. Also, I discount "Char" as an option, because
while it speaks characters, it is ambiguous as to whether it is
exactly 1 character or a string of such. So "Text" seemed to be the
best compromise.
So, stepping aside from any "it ain't broke" arguments in the favor
of Str, is there anything about the name Text that makes it a worse
or better candidate in regards to specificity or ambiguity in your
mind?
Or alternately, are there any other names which might work better
than Str for specifying character data?
-- Darren Duncan
