I'd be more interested in a kitchen-sink "List" class. ByteString, ByteString.Lazy, Text, [a], and the pending Text.Lazy all support the basic operations of lists of a particular type. It'd be a fairly huge dictionary by the current API design of those however. Its just a reiteration of the classic "Collection" class example. The biggest problem is that it requires either MPTCs/fundeps or type aliases to make it work, which makes less progressive folks queasy about its inclusion as a standard library. On the other hand, if you're going that far, it'd be nice to factor out a superclass or two for things like lookup/insert functionality, so you can eliminate a major reason why Data.Map has to be imported qualified as well. -Edward Kmett On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, minh thu <noteed@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/3/6 Wolfgang Jeltsch <g9ks157k@acme.softbase.org>:
Am Freitag, 6. März 2009 13:33 schrieb Matthew Pocock:
Hi,
It seems every time I look at hackage there is yet another stringy datatype. For lots of apps, the particular stringy datatype you use matters for performance but not algorithmic reasons. Perhaps this is a good time for someone to propose a stringy class?
Matthew
There is already the class IsString which was introduced for overloaded string literals.
However, the name is terrible. No other Haskell class I know of has an “Is” at its beginning. Classes don’t name properties (IsNum, IsMonoid, Has…).
LLVM bindings use it a lot...
Cheers, Thu _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell