Sven Panne writes:

...

Grand Unified Collection Framework whenever it arrives.

Robert Will writes:

Since we already have a concrete proposal with prototype implementation, that "whenever" may not be so far away.

There are (at least) two concrete proposals with prototype implementations, and a large number of half-baked proposals for unified collection frameworks. None of them are obviously the right thing. It takes a large investment in order to fully evaluate any of the solutions, and I don't believe any of the proposals have received nearly enough scrutiny. That's not a problem as such: it just means that we won't arrive at a situation where there is agreement on what should be *the* Haskell collection framework. But what we should do is move in a direction where it is easier for people to install libraries on their machines and play around with them. Perhaps then there will be no need to determine a "standard" - a widely-used implementation may emerge on its own. At any rate, we're a long way off. Cheers, Simon