Okay, let me ask the following question: Would anybody besides me be heartbroken if priority queues *weren't* put into containers, but were instead put into the Platform?
Louis Wasserman wasserman.lo...@gmail.com http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Schilling <nomin...@googlemail.com>wrote: > On 18 March 2010 22:02, Louis Wasserman <wasserman.lo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm still pretty strongly in favor of putting priority queues into > > containers: other programming languages consider it necessary for > inclusion > > into standardized libraries, people will be more likely to use > appropriate > > data structures for their needs when reliable, friendly implementations > are > > already at their fingertips, and other reasons already discussed. > > The Haskell Platform is really is intended to be available at your > fingertips. Unfortunately, the following does not work (although I > thought it's supposed to) > > $ cabal install haskell-platform > > Nevertheless, the libraries bundled with GHC are those libraries that > GHC itself needs and which therefore cannot be upgraded independently. > The real standard libraries are the Haskell Platform and if your > package is part of the platform, then your package *is* in status > equivalent to things like java.util.*. > > This weekend's Hackathon in Zürich will partly be dedicated to getting > the next release of the Platform release ready. If you can get your > package into the following platform release (due 6 months after the > current release), then this would surely make it the default package > for anyone in need of a PQ. > > / Thomas > -- > Push the envelope. Watch it bend. >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users