[Haskell-cafe] What do _you_ want to see in FGL?
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com
Sun Apr 25 22:44:14 EDT 2010
Since I've volunteered myself to help maintain/upgrade FGL, what do the
people in the community want to see happen with it?
Here are some ideas that I have regarding FGL:
* I had already started working on a new generic graph class  (with
initial draft at ) to act as a wrapper around FGL and other graph
implementations. However, if I'm going to be updating FGL anyway I
might as well combine the two and generalise/update FGL instead.
Generally speaking, this will involve the following items:
- Splitting and expanding the typeclasses involved; most class
methods would have default definitions but this will allow people
to override the defaults if there's a more efficient way for their
- Having a separate parameter (using associated types?) for the node
type rather than just using Int.
- Providing more "fundamental" graph operations that may be of use.
However, the downside of this is that datatypes such as Data.Graph in
containers won't match this anymore due to the lack of node and edge
labels. I think this fair price to pay, especially if the mapping
aspects are split off into another typeclass.
* Better fundamental data structures: one of the things that has always
annoyed me about FGL is how much it uses tuples; I propose re-defining
the Context type to be a record-based data structure. Also, usage of
Sets, Maps, etc. where applicable.
* Proper instances: make graphs instantiate Eq, Ord, Show and Read
(where read . show == id). The Show and Read instances will probably
usually be like how Data.Map has them, so helper functions can be
defined to help out with this.
* Split off the instances: maybe keep one basic graph datatype in FGL,
but then have separate packages for others (which means its easier to
add new datatypes without needing a new release, etc.).
* Split off the various Data.Graph.Inductive.Query functions/algorithms,
and merge in the ones I have defined in Graphalyze .
* Scrap Data.Graph.Inductive.Graphviz and recommend usage of my graphviz
library  instead.
* Data.Graph.Inductive.Monad: does anyone actually use this?
* Benchmarks and tests.
What do other people think? Any other suggestions?
Also, once I release the next version of graphviz (hopefully later
today), I was going to work on improving SourceGraph  by providing
command line options, etc. to it; would people prefer I work on FGL
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
More information about the Haskell-Cafe