Christian Maeder
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.Miljenovic@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com