Christian Maeder <christian.mae...@dfki.de> writes: > Ivan Lazar Miljenovic schrieb: >> - Having a separate parameter (using associated types?) for the node >> type rather than just using Int. > > "Just Int" for nodes was disappointing. It should have been at least a > "newtype".
This then loses you all of the advantages of using Int (pre-defined data type with known space usage, ordering, etc. and the ability to use IntMap and IntSet which out-perform the normal ones). > I would vote against these experimental features like associated types > or MPTC and FD. I prefer plain type parameters for data types, but > that does not fit well together with type classes. Why don't you like extensions? I used to feel the same way, but then someone pointed out to me that just because Haskell98 doesn't have them doesn't mean they aren't good/useful, and we should be coding for _modern_ Haskell. >> * Better fundamental data structures: one of the things that has always >> annoyed me about FGL is how much it uses tuples; I propose re-defining >> the Context type to be a record-based data structure. Also, usage of >> Sets, Maps, etc. where applicable. > > Right, these tuples annoyed me, too. (If this changes, it will break a > lot of our existing code, though.) All of my proposals will break existing code though, but I believe for the better. We can't be afraid to innovate/change our libraries, otherwise they can't improve. -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
