I'd be more interested in a kitchen-sink "List" class. ByteString, ByteString.Lazy, Text, [a], and the pending Text.Lazy all support the basic operations of lists of a particular type. It'd be a fairly huge dictionary by the current API design of those however. Its just a reiteration of the classic "Collection" class example.
The biggest problem is that it requires either MPTCs/fundeps or type aliases to make it work, which makes less progressive folks queasy about its inclusion as a standard library. On the other hand, if you're going that far, it'd be nice to factor out a superclass or two for things like lookup/insert functionality, so you can eliminate a major reason why Data.Map has to be imported qualified as well. -Edward Kmett On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, minh thu <not...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/3/6 Wolfgang Jeltsch <g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org>: > > Am Freitag, 6. März 2009 13:33 schrieb Matthew Pocock: > >> Hi, > >> > >> It seems every time I look at hackage there is yet another stringy > >> datatype. For lots of apps, the particular stringy datatype you use > matters > >> for performance but not algorithmic reasons. Perhaps this is a good time > >> for someone to propose a stringy class? > >> > >> Matthew > > > > There is already the class IsString which was introduced for overloaded > string > > literals. > > > > However, the name is terrible. No other Haskell class I know of has an > “Is” at > > its beginning. Classes don’t name properties (IsNum, IsMonoid, Has…). > > LLVM bindings use it a lot... > > Cheers, > Thu > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > Haskell@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell >
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell