DeriveFoldable treatment of tuples is surprising
david.feuer at gmail.com
Tue Mar 21 20:34:20 UTC 2017
This seems much too weird:
*> :set -XDeriveFoldable
*> data Foo a = Foo ((a,a),a) deriving Foldable
*> length ((1,1),1)
*> length $ Foo ((1,1),1)
I've opened Trac #13465 [*] for this. As I write there, I think the
right thing is to refuse to derive Foldable for a type whose Foldable
instance would currently fold over components of a tuple other than
the last one.
I could go either way on Traversable instances. One could argue that
since all relevant components *must* be traversed, we should just go
ahead and do that. Or one could argue that we should be consistent
with Foldable and refuse to derive it.
What do you all think?
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users