Hi, I second that choice. There have been some attempts at using type classes, notably the Edison library, but it never got widespread. So I would follow the current containers design.
Milan > I'm not willing to do this sort of typeclass wrapper thing, primarily > because nothing else in containers does -- even though we might have a > Mapping type class that handles both IntMap and Map, we don't. > > I'm inclined to let that design choice stand, as far as containers is > concerned. It would make perfect sense to write a new package with such a > type class and offering instances for the containers priority queue > implementations, but I prefer to stick with the style that containers > already seems to use -- that is, exporting separate modules without a > unifying type class, but with nearly-identical method signatures. > > Louis Wasserman > wasserman.lo...@gmail.com > http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tyson Whitehead <twhiteh...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > On March 16, 2010 09:29:06 Louis Wasserman wrote: > > > I'd like to request some more feedback on the > > > proposed<http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3909>implementation > > > for priority queues in containers. Mostly, I feel like > > > adding a new module to containers should be contentious, and there hasn't > > > been as much griping or contention as I expected. The silence is feeling > > > kind of eerie! > > > > Not sure if this is an appropriate question at all as I haven't looked at > > the > > code, but would it be possible to put any primary functionality into a > > class. > > > > I'm thinking something along the lines of how the vector code works. This > > allows you to use all the higher-order functions (i.e., those implemented > > using the primary functions) on a different underlying implementation. > > > > I've found this particularly useful in wrapping Perl data types. For the > > Perl > > array, all I had to do was write an class instance for the vector module, > > and > > I have all these higher-order functions I could use from existing code. > > > > It would be very nice to have had something similar to do for the hash > > tables. > > Even to just provide a "native haskell" immutable look into the data so > > Haskell code can extract the components it needs with standard functions. > > > > Cheers! -Tyson > > > > PS: I'm still working on the wrapping, so I might change my mind as to how > > useful this really is, but thought I should throw it out there. > > > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > librar...@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
