moving Foldable and Traversable to Prelude

[Ben]

+1 for Functor/Monad

On May 19, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Carter Schonwald wrote:

> +1 on that functor monad bit
> 
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Edward Kmett wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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