On 16 December 2010 23:04, Ross Paterson
Well, once you have
withKeys :: Map k a -> Map k (k,a) withKeys = mapWithKey (,)
and the Foldable instance, all those fold variants are redundant, as are all the WithKey variants.
Not as efficient though, because using withKeys and then folding requires two traversals and allocates an intermediate map compared to just folding withKey. More broadly, I don't really see the argument for removing stuff from Data.Map. The code is already written and the core implementation of Data.Map is unlikely to change very much since Milan already confirmed it's almost optimal. So there doesn't seem to be a big maintainer burden to keeping the current interface. Is there some reason that maintaing Data.Map is more difficult than I expect? There may be a burden to the new user of Data.Map if they are overwhelmed by the sheer number of different functions (though this is not a problem I had personally), but that could be solved by having a Data.Map.Simple module or just reorganising the Haddock docs so the most commonly used functions appear first on the page. Is this not a better approach than breaking existing code by removing functionality? Cheers, Max