Re: RFC: Adding a Hashable type class and HashMap/HashSet data types to HP

Daniel Peebles wrote:

I like this idea. As I mentioned on IRC, I'd call the class Hash rather than Hashable

The crypto-api already uses the class "Hash" for cryptographic hashes. If you are talking about data to be hashed, and not the algorithm to do the hashing, then "Hashable" is both correct and unique.

I'm also with you on the Word return type. It may be less convenient but maybe this will be a tiny step towards the "great Word revolt" (in which all conceptually unsigned things in the prelude and standard libraries actually become unsigned) that I hope will occur sometime in the near future.

Whats next, making sure all bounded things don't flow over/under? Pfft. Data.Word.NonFlowing Cheers, Thomas