Oh, I see what you mean now! We could probably put *everything* in the
private module and then use the public ones just for names. That seems
fine.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Yitzchak Gale
David Feuer wrote:
A relevant change has occurred since this proposal came out: `length` got added to `Foldable`, with semantics that seem to match this `size`. In light of this, I think `size` should probably be dropped, and the `Foldable` instance expanded to give a better `length`.
Sounds good.
Aside from that, someone just has to put together a pull request for haskell/containers on GitHub.
OK. João was the original owner; let's see if he wants to follow through.
The hardest part of this whole thing would be the module split. I don't personally see the point—trees are made of forests, which are made of trees, so while you *could* use Henning's trick to avoid cycles, you'd likely end up putting much of the code in Data.Tree.Private (to avoid orphan instances) and then end up with everyone exporting both public modules. For now, even with the proposed additions, Data.Tree is quite a small module, so I don't know why we should go to the trouble.
As discussed at the time - the consistent naming convention throughout the containers library is to avoid using names of types as parts of function names. Instead, separate modules are used to qualify the same name for functions that do the same thing. The module split was proposed to comply with that convention, and no one expressed any opposition.
However, personally I'm also fine with using João's original names to avoid the module split. What's important to me is getting these long-overdue combinators into the library as soon as possible, without arguing over the names.
Thanks, Yitz