--- Robert Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then perhaps it is worth considering having multiple
> implementations and
> choosing between them with pragmas and/or command
> line switches (with
> a sensible default naturally). Maybe doubly linked
> lists are not a
> great idea, but if we had a good implementation
> with, eg. O(1) access to
> both ends of the list but poor sharing, we can
> choose to use it only in
> cases where queue semantics are important and
> sharing is not. It would
> be nice to be able to monkey about with that kind of
> "under the hood"
> functionality w/o having to make any code changes.
> You could also do
> fun things like have chained-buffer list
> implementations for [Word8],
> [Char] etc.
Lists are an integral part of the Haskell language,
and in fact most languages have some version of list
at a fundamental level. Here's an interesting (not
necessarily useful!) shift of viewpoint: What if List
were a type class?
Shawn
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
