Hello Bryan,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Bryan O&#39;Sullivan <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:bos@serpentine.com">bos@serpentine.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>And what about the more experimental things? Say, DeepSeq, Typeable, Data?</div>
</blockquote></div><div>None of those are experimental. They&#39;re all frequently used in production code. DeepSeq is far more important than the other two, though. For Typeable and Data, you could copy the approach taken by Data.Map and be fine.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, including a some file via CPP did look experimental enough to me. I&#39;d like to stay away from GHC-only code, if possible.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>At some point, if you want your container class to be useful to others, you&#39;ll want to implement Foldable and Traversable.</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><div>Being useful to others would be the whole point in releasing it at all :-)</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for your explanations - I take this as: &quot;Yes, the Haskell community is really using all this stuff in production code, so better offer it, or your library might not be that usable.&quot;</div>
<div>I&#39;ll try to be complete, then.</div><div><br></div><div>- Chris</div>