Many functions can be generalised

[Henning Thielemann]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016, amindfv at gmail.com wrote:

> I'd also be -1. Function generalization sometimes has a cost in 
> comprehensability, and there aren't enough benefits to make it worth it 
> to me.

And you lose type inference in more cases.

> > maybeToList :: Foldable f => f a -> [a]
> > maybeToList = toList

Why should we have two names for Foldable.toList, where maybeToList even 
is no longer special to Maybe?

> > take :: Int -> (forall f a. Foldable f => f a -> [a])
> > take n = toListOf (taking n folded)
> 
> > drop :: Int -> (forall f a. Foldable f => f a -> [a])
> > drop n = toListOf (dropping n folded)
> 
> > cycle :: Foldable f => f a -> [a]
> > cycle = toListOf (cycled folded)

I'd prefer an extension to Monoid, i.e.
   take :: (??? m) => Int -> m -> m
   drop :: (??? m) => Int -> m -> m

   cycle :: (Semigroup m) => m -> m

Yet, I do not propose to replace Prelude functions by this 
generalisations.