You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently we have Lazy and Strict modules for Map and IntMap that act on the same type, which is a potential source of confusion and bugs.
An arguably better situation would be to have strict maps as newtypes over lazy maps. This will prevent maps from being used with the wrong module and allow strict maps to have their own instances. At the same time, it will remain possible to explicitly convert between the types in constant time.
However,
Do users want to use separate strict types? The strict-containers library exists today, but isn't widely used(?)
To avoid breakage, it would be best to have this newtype in a separate module. Having two strict modules would be confusing, how do we address that?
If we were to consider a breaking change and change the Strict module to work on a newtype, what amount of breakage would we see?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently we have Lazy and Strict modules for Map and IntMap that act on the same type, which is a potential source of confusion and bugs.
An arguably better situation would be to have strict maps as newtypes over lazy maps. This will prevent maps from being used with the wrong module and allow strict maps to have their own instances. At the same time, it will remain possible to explicitly convert between the types in constant time.
However,
strict-containers
library exists today, but isn't widely used(?)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: