[langsec-discuss] The String Type is Broken
sergey at cs.dartmouth.edu
Fri Nov 29 00:36:28 UTC 2013
> And that is the actual problem. The string type is not broken. It just
> is not a text type.
I very much like this formulation! To me, the crucial difference is
that strings need *parsing* -- however simple, e.g., special handling
for escape characters and separators -- to become interpretable text.
And this parsing is what's broken.
A classification of such kinds of "string to text" pasring might
help properly frame and resolve this issue.
> And most often, there is no text type in the standard library despite of
> practical needs in a world full of text!
I suppose that the reason may be that the required parsing is
considered elementary, and elementary almost always means "dealt
with in an ad-hoc way".
More information about the langsec-discuss