On 28 April 2010 08:48, Henning Thielemann <[email protected]> wrote: > Ivan Lazar Miljenovic schrieb: >> Henning Thielemann <[email protected]> writes: >>> I was not happy with the way FGL handles lables so far: >>> http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2008-February/009241.html >> >> Not sure I follow what you want there: you want to remove the whole >> concept of labels and replace it with the node type? What about edge >> labels then? > > You can label edges using a Map (i,i) label.
So you don't want the labels to be part of the actual datatype? And for users to then have to deal with any labels they want themselves? If so, I don't think this is feasible; some of the nice parts of FGL IMHO are how it deals with labels (admittedly, I've had to write and use my own "((Int,a) -> a') -> g a b -> g a' b" function because it doesn't have one...). Removing this would be a step backwards. How exactly is it bad/a pain to have to deal with specifying "g () ()", especially since there are some pre-defined "unlabelled" graph type and function aliases? -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic [email protected] IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
