On 14 February 2010 22:11, Evan Laforge <qdunkan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There's still no consensus on typeclasses for collections, so these
> are all separate functions. Has anyone taken a shot at a set of
> AT-using classes for the standard collections?
The standard collections have different shapes depending on what they
represent (maps, trees, lists, sequences) so considering Functor,
Traversable, Foldable perhaps the common operations are largely
already covered. A unifying 'collection' class might be as problematic
as good old Num is for numbers...
Haskell-Cafe mailing list