Re: A more useful Monoid instance for Data.Map

...

-----Original message----- From: Johan Tibell Sent: 12 Mar 2013, 13:00

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Ben Gamari wrote:

...

I suppose this means that we need to resign ourselves to living with the instance to eternity?

Most likely. Fortunately there's an infinite amount of other things we can work on, like writing new libraries! :) One way to go would be to define a new set of API for containers instead of modifying the current one, e.g., create Data.Containers.Ord{Set,Map}.

There are several issues with the current API -- wrong Monoid instance being one of those, maybe lack of class hierarchy, wrong module names -- Data.Map is really a Data.OrdMap, some people being unhappy with the API as it is, and so on.

The problem is that devising new API that would make everybody happy is quite a challenging task :) But it wouldn't be so bad probably, the current API is not terribly wrong.

Cheers, Milan

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries I've been following this thread for a while, and I have to say I like Milan's suggestion. It is backwards compatible for those who need the original libraries, and the people who like the new implementation can start using it. This could involve some duplicate work between the two branches for a while, but the old one can be depreciated whenever the

On 3/13/2013 4:53 AM, Milan Straka wrote: maintainer(s) like. Jeff