On Feb 7, 2008 2:30 AM, Bjorn Buckwalter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok. Is this what people want -- one big hold-all library with > everything, as opposed to smaller more specialized packages? I guess I > can see advantages (real or perceived) to both approaches.
Apart from Dockins' typenats library there are no other user-friendly specific type-level libraries that know, so I cannot really tell if people would prefer a hold-all library or a couple of more granular specialized ones. Right now is not hold-all at all (it is still vaporware actually :)), so I think there's no reason to discuss that at this point. Let's see what people think. > The other library I use for type-level programming is HList. It has > type-level booleans already so you might what to take a look at it if > you're not already familiar with it. Thanks I'll have a look at it. > In fact, if you are serious about > creating the de facto(?) type-level programming library trying to get > Oleg involved would be very beneficial both in terms of innovation and > credibility. Sure. I've actually been exchanging mail with Oleg. He has given me some useful suggestions and contributed with some code. He didn't mention to what point he wanted to get involved though, but I'm sure he will try to help. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
