DeriveFoldable treatment of tuples is surprising
jake.mcarthur at gmail.com
Tue Mar 21 21:05:19 UTC 2017
I think it's a question of what one considers consistent. Is it more
consistent to treat tuples as transparent and consider every component with
type `a`, or is it more consistent to treat tuples as opaque and reuse the
existing Foldable instance for tuples even if it might cause a compile time
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017, 4:34 PM David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
> [*] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13465
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users