moving Foldable and Traversable to Prelude

[John Lato]

-1, for the reasons given by Henning.

If we're going to be changing stuff in Prelude, why not start with
Functor/Monad?


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 15 May 2013, David Luposchainsky wrote:
>
>  +1. I think the Prelude should be a general module of the most commonly
>> needed functions, which (generalized) folds and traversals are certainly
>> part of; right now it feels more like a beginner module at times.
>>
>
> It is certainly a kind of beginner module, but that's good. Experts know
> how to import. Putting the most general functions into Prelude does not
> work because:
>
> 1. There are often multiple sensible generalizations of a Prelude function.
>
> 2. You have to add more type annotations since types cannot be infered
> from the functions.
>
>
> There is simply no need to change Prelude and all packages that rely on
> specific types. Just don't be lazy and import the stuff you need!
>
> I should change my vote to:
>
>  -10
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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/20130516/d0de719d/attachment.htm>