Hi Ivan,

>> then what about the arguably better name `size`?
> Huh, I thought we already had that.

We do?
If there is consensus I would then add `size` with the arguably more efficient implementation:
size :: Tree a -> Int
size = getSum . F.foldMap (const $ Sum 1)

> * An Ord instance (achievable via standalone deriving, though this isn't ideal)

Agreed.

> * Functions to take/drop so many levels of the tree (take is
> relatively easy; drop would result in a Forest).

Similar to treeprune in http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hledger-lib-0.22.1/docs/Hledger-Utils.html#v:subtreeat ?

> mirror :: Tree a -> Tree a
> mirror (Node a ts) = Node a . reverse $ map mirror ts

I don't have strong feeling about this one, but if more people see as useful, why not...

Joćo


2014-02-24 11:38 GMT+00:00 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljenovic@gmail.com>:
On 24 February 2014 22:17, Tobias Florek <haskell@ibotty.net> wrote:
> hi,
>
>> But to be honest, I don't have strong feelings about this, I'm willing
>> to drop this particular function (length) from the proposal, if there is
>> no consensus.
>
> then what about the arguably better name `size`?

Huh, I thought we already had that.

Some things I missed when I last used Data.Tree:

* An Ord instance (achievable via standalone deriving, though this isn't ideal)

* A function to take the mirror-image of a tree (name not that important):

mirror :: Tree a -> Tree a
mirror (Node a ts) = Node a . reverse $ map mirror ts

* Functions to take/drop so many levels of the tree (take is
relatively easy; drop would result in a Forest).


>
> cheers,
>  tobias florek
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries



--
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com
http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries