[Haskell-cafe] Lenses and records and ecosystem
fumiexcel at gmail.com
Sat Feb 11 09:30:39 UTC 2017
Are there any real cases that the polymorphism of Control.Category..
becomes a real problem? I think ambiguity rarely occurs on the kind (* -> *
2017-02-10 14:35 GMT+09:00 Anthony Clayden <anthony_clayden at clear.net.nz>:
> I see Simon PJ's comment here
> and the lengthy discussions from different advocates.
> How much is it true there's a fractured "Haskell ecosystem"
> with 2 (3?) incompatible approaches:
> * H98 style labelled records with various extensions to ease
> the pain.
> * newtype-wrapped Lenses
> * 'raw' (unwrapped) Lenses
> Can you mix those three styles inside one program? How much
> pain does it cause?
> Can you import libraries with a mix of styles? How does a
> program cope?
> I see the plethora of operators Lenses come with
> (mostly to keep the types coherent?).
> Except that Lens composition is plain function composition
> I remember something from SPJ's video/lecture on Lenses:
> that having Lens composition turn out to be function
> composition is "cute".
> That suggests to me it's more of a happy accident than a
> necessary feature.
> I also see in the ORF proposal, OverloadedLabels part,
> that composing with Control.Category.(.) can lead to type
> I wonder:
> Could there be a dedicated operator for composing Lenses,
> that has the same semantics as (.),
> but a more specialised type?
> To strengthen type inference/reduce ambiguity.
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe