[erlang-questions] Strings - deprecated functions

[Grzegorz Junka]

Dear Lloyd,

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?

GrzegorzJ


On 22/11/2017 19:43, lloyd@REDACTED wrote:
>
> Dear Gods of Erlang,
>
> "This module has been reworked in Erlang/OTP 20 to handle 
> unicode:chardata() 
> <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 
> lexemes/2.
>
> 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.
>
> SOLUTION
>
> 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,
>
> LRP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20171122/e8f25a2f/attachment.htm>