On Wednesday 20 February 2008 8:42:56 pm Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > John Goerzen wrote: > > I am concerned that the same thing is happening in Haskell. We know > > have three common list-like types: the regular list, strict > > ByteString, and lazy ByteString. > > Why do you consider ByteString to be list-like but not arrays? > > > 1) Does everyone agree with me that we have a problem here? > > Yes, definitely. Haskell simply lacks a standard container library. > > > 2) Would it make sense to make ListLike, or something like it, > > part of the Haskell core? > > I don't think ListLike is the right approach. It's basically a fairly > arbitrary collection of functions. It would be preferable, IMO, to > identify a small set of combinators which would allow most list/sequence > functions to be implemented generically and efficiently. Personally, I'd > go with something like streams (the stream fusion ones) but I'm biased, > of course.
From what I've heard of streams in this discussion, that does sound quite interesting. Unless streams are used internally for the [] implementation, though, we'd still need something to resolve the library compatibility question. -- John _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
