On 25 November 2011 05:13, Thomas DuBuisson
My thinking on this was that something akin to NodeMap should be _part_ of the graph structure. This would be more convenient and allow the graph and nodemap operations to apply to a single data structure.
Instead of:
insMapNode_ :: (Ord a, DynGraph g) => NodeMap a -> a -> g a b -> g a b
You could have:
insMapNode_ :: (Ord a, DynGraph g) => a -> g a b -> g a b
The only think stopping us from making a product data type like this is the inflexibility of the type classes, right? Were we able to define (&) to update the nodemap too then we could keep these to structures in sync automatically instead of expecting the programmer to keep them paired correctly.
My thinking is to (eventually) make more fine-grained classes, and have newtype wrappers that would add this kind of functionality (which would even let you choose the type of constraint); i.e. adding a node to a `(Hashable (NodeLabel g)) => HashableNodeMap g` would also add a `NodeLabel g -> Node g` mapping to some internal lookup; is this what you're after? -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com