A more useful Monoid instance for Data.Map
John Lato
jwlato at gmail.com
Wed Mar 13 01:28:52 CET 2013
-1, I'm against breaking the current Monoid also.
I like Gabriel's solutions, and particularly I'd like to have:
instance (Ord k, Semigroup v) => Monoid (WrappedMap k v) where
mempty = empty
mappend map0 map1 = unionWith <> map0 map1
mconcat maps = foldr (unionWith <>) empty maps
but even a Monoid constraint would be useful.
John L.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Gabriel Gonzalez <gabriel439 at gmail.com>wrote:
> -1 on breaking the existing Monoid instance. I'd prefer either:
>
> a) A newtype for the additional Monoid instance, or
> b) providing an associative operator equivalent to the new Monoid instance
>
> I'm not convinced that the replacement instance is more useful, let alone
> useful enough to break everything depending on containers. A lot of
> packages both on and off Hackage depend on Edward's code, almost all of
> which would break as a result of this change.
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/libraries<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20130313/d5b38dcc/attachment.htm>
More information about the Libraries
mailing list