Hi,
Since there are so many of these functions, I propose we introduce Lazy and Strict versions of IntMap. We should also carefully document operations on the IntMap that are strict on all values; for example, filter. Similar changes should be made to Data.Map.
+1 To be more verbose, I would like the following: - have Data.IntMap.Lazy and Data.IntMap.Strict, with equal set of methods (so they can be used interchangeably) - for backward compatibility, have Data.IntMap as it is, but deprecate all strict methods ending with '. In the end, Data.IntMap should just reexport Data.IntMap.Lazy. - the types Data.IntMap.IntMap, Data.IntMap.Lazy.IntMap and Data.IntMap.Strict.IntMap should be equal -- so I can use strict methods on IntMap someone else created with lazy methods. That is simple in absence of type classes. Cheers, Milan
There is also a companion proposal: Regardless of whether or not we implement Strict and Lazy versions of IntMap, we should implement all of these strict versions of functions, because are not easy for end-users to implement. A counter-proposal is, if we split out Strict and Lazy IntMap, we should *remove* all strict functions from the lazy map, on grounds that selective strictness can be implemented with an extra layer of indirection on the Strict IntMap.
Commentary: I favor separate value strict and value lazy maps, and also believe that insertWith' and friends should be deprecated from the lazy versions. I don't think reimplementing all of these functions to be strict is a good idea, on code duplication and API clutter reasons. Remember: at the cost of one layer of indirection, you can be selectively lazy using IntMap (Lazy a).
Discussion period: 3 weeks
Cheers, Edward
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries