[erlang-questions] Strings - deprecated functions
Wed Nov 22 20:59:45 CET 2017
Isn't this more about documentation than the code? What I am reading is
that you want to keep the old functions because you don't understand how
the new functions work. Shouldn't you rather ask for a more clear
documentation? Is there anything in the old functions that is not
supported in the new functions?
On 22/11/2017 19:43, lloyd@REDACTED wrote:
> Dear Gods of Erlang,
> "This module has been reworked in Erlang/OTP 20 to handle
> <http://erlang.org/doc/man/unicode.html#type-chardata> and operate on
> grapheme clusters. The old functions
> <http://erlang.org/doc/man/string.html#oldapi> that only work on
> Latin-1 lists as input are still available but should not be used.
> They will be deprecated in Erlang/OTP 21."
> I'm sorry. I've brought up this issue before and got lots of push back.
> But every time I look up tried and true and long-used string functions
> to find that they are deprecated and will be dropped in future Erlang
> releases my blood pressure soars. Both my wife and my doctor tell me
> that at my age this is a dangerous thing.
> I do understand the importance and necessity of Unicode. And applaud
> the addition of Unicode functions.
> But the deprecated string functions have a long history. The English
> language and Latin-1 characters are widely used around the world.
> Yes, it should be easy for programmers to translate code from one user
> language to another. But I'm not convinced that the Gods of Erlang
> have found the optimal solution by dropping all Latin-1 string functions.
> My particular application is directed toward English speakers. So,
> until further notice, I have no use for Unicode.
> I don't want to sound like nationalist pig, but I think dropping the
> Latin-1 string functions from future Erlang releases is a BIG mistake.
> I look up tokens/2, a function that I use fairly frequently, and I see
> that it's deprecated. I look up the suggested replacement and I see
> So I ask, what the ... is a lexeme? I look it up in Merriam-Webster
> and I see that a lexeme is "a meaningful linguistic unit."
> Meaning what? I just want to turn "this and that" into "This And That."
> I read further in the Erlang docs and I see "grapheme cluster." WHAT
> THE ... IS GRAPHEME CLUSTER?
> I look up "grapheme" in Merriam-Webster. Oh it is now all so clear: "a
> unit of a writing system."
> Ah yes, grapheme is defined in the docs. But I have to read and
> re-read the definition to understand what the God's of Erlang mean by
> a "graphene cluster." And I'm still not sure I get it.
> It sounds like someone took a linguistics class and is trying to show off.
> But now I've spent 30 minutes--- time that I don't have to waste
> trying to figure out how do a simple manipulation of "this and that."
> Recurse the next time I want to look up a string function in the
> Erlang docs.
> Keep the Latin-1 string functions. Put them in a separate library if
> necessary. Or put the new Unicode functions in a separate library. But
> don't arbitrarily drop them.
> Some folks have suggested that I maintain my own library of the
> deprecated Latin1 functions. But why should I have to do that? How
> does that help other folks with the same issue?
> Bottom line: please please please do not drop the existing Latin-1
> string functions.
> Please don't.
> Best wishes,
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions