Hi all, currently we have the following folds in the containers package: Map: fold, foldWithKey, foldrWithKey, foldlWithKey Set: fold IntMap; fold, foldWithKey IntSet: fold If the direction (right, left) is not specified, the fold is the right fold. So currently we have no left folds (except for the Map) and also Map and IntMap are not consistent. There are several issues I am thinking about: a) we could left and right folds. For the Set and IntSet it is simple -- we can add foldr and foldl, and deprecated fold with the message 'use foldr instead'. For the Map and IntMap it is not so simple -- should we add both foldr, foldl, foldlWithKey and foldrWithKey? b) we could use the Foldable instances more. We can implement foldr and foldl efficiently and let the users to use those instead of providing eg Set.foldr, Set.foldl. This does not cover the *WithKey variant, as the Foldable instances over Map and IntMap does not utilize the key. c) strict folds. If we add also strict folds, we would have a total of _four_ folds in Set and IntSet and __eight__ folds in Map and IntMap. The Foldable module exports foldl' and foldr', which use foldr, foldl respectively, but needs some intermediate memory (it creates a thunk for every node of the structure). Apart from that, this does not cover the *WithKey variants as in b). Personally I would add foldr, foldl, foldlWithKey, foldrWithKey and specialised foldr, foldl implementations in the Foldable classes. I am not sure about the strict folds -- I used an equivalent of the foldr' from the Foldable module in GHC and it was reasonable fast. Any oppinions? Cheers, Milan