At 10:35 AM -0600 8/13/06, David Green wrote:
On 8/8/06, Darren Duncan wrote:
I thought your reasons made sense, and would be happy with a "Text"
type, although I don't especially object to "Str" -- as you say,
it's probably good enough given ordinary programming usage.
However the IRC ex
On 8/8/06, Darren Duncan wrote:
At 5:25 PM -0700 8/8/06, Darren Duncan wrote:
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.
... I have evolved my thoughts to accept that Str i
At 5:25 PM -0700 8/8/06, Darren Duncan wrote:
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
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 seq
