Re: Monadic version of functions for containers (adjustM, updateWithKeyM, etc)

On 9/27/10 11:32 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Thomas DuBuisson wrote:

...

All,

Is there a reason not to have monadic version of the functions in containers? I've a need for functions of type:

Ack! Haskell needs effect polymorphism. The API already has 150 functions. How many more do we need to add if we want to cover all the monadic versions?

At the risk (read: guarantee) of compatibility breakage, might I suggest that the containers library move to a design like bytestring-trie[1] where there are about three modules for each structure: one for the minimal core functionality, one for reasonable coverage of basic/common use, and one for the other 125 convenience functions. The core vs basic distinction isn't strictly necessary, though it can put a helpful varnish over some unpolished primitives (e.g., showTrie, lookupBy_). Honestly, once you have the swiss army chainsaw primitives and the normal functions for mere mortals, all the rest are just SACPs plus some basic combinators for simplifying types. Few of the intermediate simplifications of SACPs are so useful that they oughtn't be pushed off to another module anyways. [1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/bytestring-trie (Yes, I still need to add the monadic interface. I ran into that problem recently...) -- Live well, ~wren