That type is still there, although most will now opt to use the newer List<> which is a generic type.
Once everyone is conditioned to think "A list is an array" it's OK for Microsoft to shorten the name in the newer type.
In Elm LinkedList would be a good type name to avoid confusion.
To me it doesn't feel like a stack. I mean technically it is. But then what's with the (++) operation? That's a weird operator for stacks, right? It feels weird to use any infix and would rather have definitions like this:
push : a -> Stack a -> Stack a
peek : Stack a -> Maybe a
pop : Stack a -> (a, Stack a)
Funnily enough it is called ArrayList in C#1.0.
That type is still there, although most will now opt to use the newer List<> which is a generic type.
Once everyone is conditioned to think "A list is an array" it's OK for Microsoft to shorten the name in the newer type.
In Elm LinkedList would be a good type name to avoid confusion.
To me it doesn't feel like a stack. I mean technically it is. But then what's with the (++) operation? That's a weird operator for stacks, right? It feels weird to use any infix and would rather have definitions like this:
push : a -> Stack a -> Stack a
peek : Stack a -> Maybe a
pop : Stack a -> (a, Stack a)
You’re right, (++) is not an efficient operation for a single-linked-list, and so one could make a (good, in my oppinion) argument for it’s removal.
Thing is, Haskell’s
Listalso has (++), and Elm hasn’t had a stableArrayimplementation (it gets one in 0.19).If my proposal is accepted, it would make sense to remove bad operations from
List.