(Co/Contra)Functor and Comonad

[Ben Moseley]

Is the problem the size of base per-se, or is it more the number of things in base for which the design might ideally be subject to change?

If it's the latter, then that should maybe be the main consideration.

(Personally I think I'd like to see 'Comonad' in base...)

--Ben

On 29 Dec 2010, at 12:37, Ian Lynagh wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 04:43:24PM -0500, Mario Blažević wrote:
>> Why are Cofunctor and Comonad classes not a part of the base library?
> 
> Base is already too large IMO. Why do these classes /need/ to be in
> base, rather than another package?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Ian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries