[Haskell-beginners] why is there no typeclass common to all containers?

[Silent Leaf]

sure i know that,  but what about sorting, or getting an element through a
certain way (i bet there's a way to isolate the way the getting is done)?
deleting one, etc. those are common operations but each function for each
type requires its special name and namespace because each type needs its
own functions because there's to my knowledge no typeclass for typically
container oriented overlodable and -loaded functions (OTHER than the
functor-app-monad triad and any other typeclass already existing), that is,
any other container-related function that has several equivalents across
types, and that isn't already in any typeclass. i thought it was implicitly
obvious in my question.

in fact, way beyond the limited scope of container, i wonder why function
overloading isn't chosen every time there's a common operation across types
(and i mean every time). that is, as you said, every time we want to do
something similar but for different types, differently.

Le mercredi 1 juin 2016, Jeffrey Brown <jeffbrown.the at gmail.com> a écrit :
> In Haskell typeclasses are based on what you want to do with something.
If, for instance, you want to be able to map over a container, you can make
it an instance of class Functor -- which all the standard containers (List,
Map, Set, Tree, Maybe ...) already are.
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Silent Leaf <silent.leaf0 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> In fact it all comes down to trying to add partially a feature absent
from the Haskell language, which is the ability to distinguish values both
on name *and* on type --thus allowing two variables of the same name if
they have different types.
>> Honestly i don't see the drawback of that name system, but i guess there
must be one otherwise it'd have been chosen by default instead of the
typeblind current name system.
>>
>> Le mercredi 1 juin 2016, Silent Leaf <silent.leaf0 at gmail.com> a écrit :
>> > All in the title. I haven't used them much, but I saw Map or Vector
types were forcing the user to use qualified functions unless you want
nameclash with the more basic, typically list-oriented functions.
>> > So, why not have a massive, general purpose interface so the type only
can separate between containers --which would allow for cross-container
polymorphism, i suppose, more easily, even though it's not necessarily the
most widespread need.
>> > So, do i miss something? Is there in fact a class of that kind? If so
why not?
>> > Thanks in advance! :)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Beginners mailing list
>> Beginners at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeffrey Benjamin Brown
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20160601/37f4993a/attachment.html>