Vlad Dumitrescu XX (LN/EAB) vlad.xx.dumitrescu@REDACTED
Wed Nov 30 14:39:45 CET 2005

> From: Joe Armstrong (AL/EAB) 

> 	1) printing binaries <<"...">> properly has had a 
> strange effect on my programming
> 	I now use them far more than I ever did before - this 
> is because they get printed
> 	nicely - I think I was often using atoms just because I 
> could see them when my
> 	program failed.

Yes, that's what a convenient syntax tends to do! :-)
> 	2) We don't need or want a string type. That's what a binary is.
> 	IMHO we need a character type - so we can distinguish $a from

I think it amounts to almost the same thing in practice. What I'd need
is something that is distinguishable from regular lists, but with list
semantics and hopefully even (similar) syntax. 

A character type will be helpful even in the case that there will be
pressure to support Unicode in a better way, because the upgrade won't
be visible at source code level.

I think the most difficult issue is how to handle "old-style" strings:
they have still to be lists of integers so that old code doesn't break.
So the new strings, will get a different notation, like <<"..">> (which
is bound to be more verbose) and might create confusion, especially for


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list