Open scravy opened 11 years ago
You see, that's exactly the problem of having both these data structures under a single library. We'll forever be bound by this synchronization issue to keep it neat, and I don't really see any benefits - the data structures are too different. This really makes me lean towards an idea of splitting it into two libraries. How do you feel about that?
You see, that's exactly the problem of having both these data structures under a single library. We'll forever be bound by this synchronization issue to keep it neat, and I don't really see any benefits - the data structures are too different. This really makes me lean towards an idea of splitting it into two libraries. How do you feel about that? I think that is the best option, especially since neither do I nor do you have enough time at our hands to support both. Let's throw the list based one out and if I do find the time I'll create a bagmultimap or something.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
Totally agreed. Also in this situation it makes perfect sense to rename Data.SetMultiMap
to just Data.MultiMap
.
For when is this release expected? Would like to use Data.SetMultiMap
without having to specify a git commit in my stack.yml
.
Should we release v1.3 or do you feel uncomfortable with it, i.e. should I catch up with the list based multimap to your version?