> From: Roman Leshchinskiy <r...@cse.unsw.edu.au> > > On 31/03/2010, at 18:14, Achim Schneider wrote: > >> We have a lot of useful interfaces (e.g. ListLike, Edison), but they >> don't seem to enjoy wide-spread popularity. > > Perhaps that's an indication that we need different interfaces? IMO, huge > classes which generalise every useful function we can think of just isn't the > right approach. We need small interfaces between containers and algorithms. > In fact, the situation is perhaps somewhat similar to C++ where by providing > exactly that the STL has been able to replace OO-style collection libraries > which never really worked all that well.
Agreed. There should be a hierarchy with multiple interfaces, e.g. Collection, List, Map, Set, etc. I can't speak for Edison, but ListLike only implements the List, and doesn't provide an appropriate base class. I also agree that the STL (as well as the generic collections in C#/ASP.Net) seem to take the best approach here. That being said, I also agree with Darryn Reid that Data.HashTable could use some work as a higher priority. John _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
