Hi, > I don't like libraries getting bigger, I like them getting smaller. > > When they're smaller they're easier to understand and easier to upgrade. > > So I would also advice proposing your package for the HP (Haskell Platform). > > I'm even for splitting containers into sub-packages: maps, sets, > sequence, graph and tree. Those sub-packages would then need to be > added to the HP. > > Then we could turn containers into a meta-package that depends on > these sub-packages (similar to how the HP works[1]). > > Finally we could deprecate containers and after some time remove it. > > (I'm also for splitting base even more... but one thing at a time)
personally I am against splitting containers. It is a collection of several basic data structures with similar design decisions (reasonably efficient, can be used persistently, decent API). I think these structures should stay together, to have a library of data structures for common usage. I am for adding the priority queues to the containers. Cheers, Milan Straka _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users