On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Simon Marlow <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:marlowsd@gmail.com">marlowsd@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">I personally would rather have one IntMap with strict and lazy APIs.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am also in favour of the &quot;same type approach&quot; because it seems it can help to avoid duplicating the implementations. Would it be efficient to define a type Data.IntMap.Strict.IntMap with strict fields (also for values) and then define Data.IntMap.Lazy in terms of this implementation and a wrapper type?</div>
<div><br></div><div>data Lazy a = Lazy { getLazy :: a }</div><div><br></div><div>newtype IntMap a = LazyIntMap { getLazyIntMap :: Data.IntMap.Strict (Lazy a) }</div><div><br></div><div>lookup :: Int -&gt; IntMap a -&gt; Maybe a</div>
<div>lookup n = fmap getLazy . Data.IntMap.Strict.lookup n . getLazyIntMap</div><div><br></div><div>...</div><div><br></div><div>Sebastian</div></div>