Proposal: improve the Data.Tree API

[João Cristóvão]

> What is bad about two imports?

It is a breaking change from the current Data.Tree API.

>From Milan' proposal:
> users would write
>  import qualified Data.Tree as Tree
>  import qualified Data.Tree.Forest as Forest
>and then use the methods as
>  Tree.lookupTree
>  Tree.filter
>and
>  Forest.filter

Which, I would guess, would imply turning:
Data.Tree.unfoldTree  -> Data.Tree.unfold
Data.Tree.unfoldForest -> Data.Tree.Forest.unfold

Thus breaking existing code.

But again, I don't have a strong opinion about this. What really matters is
to have the new functions (and comonad references) in the API.

Cheers,
João

2015-01-01 10:20 GMT+00:00 Henning Thielemann <lemming at henning-thielemann.de
>:

>
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, João Cristóvão wrote:
>
>  For the record, nevertheless, I was moving along with the separate
>> Tree/Forest modules to avoid further bikeshedding, but to be honest I don't
>> really see a big advantage - if your using one, you most probably will also
>> need to use the other, so why two imports?
>>
>
> What is bad about two imports?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20150101/ae7a3dc6/attachment.html>