On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Adrian Hey wrote: > Ideally the way to deal with this is via standardised interfaces (using > type classes with Haskell), not standardised implementations. Even this > level of standardisation is not a trivial clear cut design exercise. > e.g we currently have at least two competing class libs, Edison and the > collections package. Which one should become standard? >
They shouldn't, at least not now. Knock up something lightweight that'll do for now for each of the modules that're going to be standard, worry about overarching frameworks later. Realistically we need a standardised name which we can expect to find an implementation under, with some performance guarantees even if they're the worst possible ones we can make. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'In Ankh-Morpork even the shit have a street to itself... Truly this is a land of opportunity.' - Detritus, Men at Arms _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
