Proposal: improve the Data.Tree API

[João Cristóvão]

Ok, that seems great!

2015-01-01 15:27 GMT+00:00 Yitzchak Gale <gale at sefer.org>:

> Henning Thielemann wrote:
> >> What is bad about two imports?
>
> João Cristóvão wrote:
> > It is a breaking change from the current Data.Tree API...
> > would imply turning:
> > Data.Tree.unfoldTree  -> Data.Tree.unfold
> > Data.Tree.unfoldForest -> Data.Tree.Forest.unfold
> > Thus breaking existing code.
>
> I didn't envision this as being a breaking change,
> at least not immediately. I think the idea is:
>
> 1. Leave everything currently in Data.Tree as it is.
>
> 2. For new functions that apply to trees, put them
> into Data.Tree, and if there are versions of those
> that apply to forests, put those into Data.Tree.Forest
> with the same name.
>
> 3. For existing functions in Data.Tree that explicitly
> include "Tree" or "Forest" as part of the function name,
> provide aliases using the above scheme. Perhaps mark
> the old versions as deprecated, but don't get rid of them
> yet.
>
> 4. Use Henning's internal module trick to work around
> circular module dependencies, re-exporting and/or renaming
> functions in the modules they need to appear in for the API.
>
> Also, re-export Forest itself from Data.Tree.Forest, just
> because if we don't it would look silly.
>
> Thanks,
> Yitz
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20150101/93f42e37/attachment.html>