Browse thread
Announce: xsetxmap, unfunctorized, Sexp-lib aware versions of Set and Map
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2008-04-23 (14:23) |
From: | Berke Durak <berke.durak@e...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Announce: xsetxmap, unfunctorized, Sexp-lib awareversions of Set and Map |
David Allsopp wrote: > Brian Hurt wrote: > >> Jon Harrop wrote: >> > > Agreed - then we could also have more sensibly located functions such as > Int.of_string (note that it's the same length as int_of_string!!) and remove > lots of random functions from Pervasives! Of course we'll just add an extra Int module and leave Pervasives alone, or at least make it trigger a warning. > All that said, and especially as StdLib changes are reasonably rare, I find > having files IntSet.ml and IntSet.mli containing: > > include Set.Make(struct type t = int let compare = Pervasives.compare end) > > and > > include Set.S with type elt = int > > isn't too bad (except that you have to include IntSet.cmo/.cmx when > compiling, obviously) > > I agree, and someone might write an optimized version for ints or floats. But Xset & Xmap also provide opportunities to add some missing functions. In particular, I often use Sets or Maps as a good priority queue/heap substitute, and reverse_fold / reverse_iter come in handy. The only problem is that I have an allergy to CamlCaseIdentifiers but I'll just swallow some antiHistaminics. -- Berke DURAK