If we have an algorithm that only needs a Bag, then we are free to improve the implementation of Bag in the future so that it doesn’t preserve order under the hood (e.g, use a hash table). So, I personally think it’s useful to have around.
Sent from my phone. > On Jun 2, 2018, at 5:13 AM, Andreas Klebinger <klebinger.andr...@gmx.at> > wrote: > > We have OrdList which does: > > Provide trees (of instructions), so that lists of instructions > can be appended in linear time. > > And Bag which claims to be: > > an unordered collection with duplicates > > However the actual implementation of Bag is also a tree if things. > Given that we have snocBag, consBag that implies to me it's > also an ordered collection. > > I wondered if besides of someone having to do it if there is a reason why > these couldn't be combined > into a single data structure? Their implementation seems similar enough as > far as I can tell. > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
