Why is there no Foldable instance for Either?

[Oliver Charles]

I actually kind of like Const as it matches 'const' - though I'm not sure
how similar they really are in theory.
On 12 Jun 2013 20:39, "Edward Kmett" <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:

> The main concern I would have is that Const actually seems to be in use
> everywhere, while Constant is more or less unused by dint of the fact that
> Const comes into scope with Control.Applicative, so many more people are
> aware of it.
>
> -Edward
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Ross Paterson <R.Paterson at city.ac.uk>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:01:15AM -0400, Edward Kmett wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Shachaf Ben-Kiki <shachaf at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >     Just to make sure this isn't slipping through the cracks -- is
>> there a
>> >     particular reason not to add the instance for (Const r)? It was
>> >     brought up in the last discussion and it has one obviously-correct
>> >     definition. It's a useful instance.
>> >
>> > No reason at all other than an annoying major version bump in
>> transformers.
>>
>> Constant in transformers already has these instances, but Const in base
>> doesn't.  Otherwise they're the same (and both of them are my fault).
>> One of them should go -- I'm in favour of keeping the full name.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20130612/ee8e0e06/attachment.htm>