Who needs Ord for Sets and Maps anyway?

[Sebastian Sylvan]

On 1/19/06, ajb at spamcop.net <ajb at spamcop.net> wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> Quoting Adrian Hey <ahey at iee.org>:
>
> > Is Edison still being maintained, BTW? I wasn't even aware that is was
> > distributed (with GHC least) until quite recently. (It seems a pity to
> > have it languishing in obscurity under hslibs.)
>
> I adopted it for a while, but stopped actively maintaining it because
> discussion on this list seemed to indicate that nobody really wanted it.
>
> Some day I'm going to cabalise it at least, so that should at least
> make it less obscure.

Well, for the record. I think the lack of good "standardised" data
structures is one of the main problems with Haskell (and one of the
easiest to fix). So if you do have the incliniation and time to work
on it, I know I'd sure apreciate it!

A good "standard" class hierarchy for collections and several
implementations is very much needed, IMO.

/S

--
Sebastian Sylvan
+46(0)736-818655
UIN: 44640862