-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
revmap this package? #1
Comments
As documented, I consider this package to be deprecated (and not to be developed further). The problem is that it uses the same module names as But maybe I see it wrongly -- please do not hesitate to discuss your reasons here. |
I would say keep same name and same API is actually a nice thing, user can easily switch package and do benchmark without changing code, even if someone really need use both, ghc aupport package qualification. What do you think? |
Currently I am inclining on revamping the @tibbe Do you have any thoughts on this? It seems people are using |
OK, I'll try create a new package and do more benchmark to see if it worth sharing. One more question, why use |
If people want the different speed tradeoff of |
@winterland1989 Ok, so if you are willing to do it, please go ahead. However, I have some remarks:
|
OK, thanks for your advice! I'll come back to you when it's ready. |
Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this question: What were the reasons behind the deprecation in favor of |
@sjakobi The |
From
unordered-containers
's benchmark and other places, it seems hashmap is faster at inserting but slower at reading, maybe more suitable under some situations?I'd like to revmap this package with more benchmark and add
Strict/Lazy
modules, does that make sense? @foxikThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: