moving Foldable and Traversable to Prelude

[Edward Kmett]

I'd be +1 for doing that, too.


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:16 PM, John Lato <jwlato at gmail.com> wrote:

> -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>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130516/0ecb7003/attachment.htm>