Proposal: pare down traversable

[Edward Kmett]

Until we get rid of (>>) from Control.Monad and we can then rely upon (*>)
and (>>) having the same performance characteristics mapM_ and traverse_
are not interchangeable. I realize you didn't say anything about those
functions, but hear me out.

The tentative migration plan is, assuming the "monad of no return" proposal
goes through, to first eliminate (>>) then fix mapM_. This avoids the very
awkward intermediate state that would be a result of directly implementing
your proposal here where mapM_ needs a stronger constraint (Monad) than
mapM does, which would use Applicative!

I therefore very strongly advocate waiting for the elimination of (>>)
through the monad of no return proposal before we proceed with any
simplification of Traversable.

-Edward

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 5:05 PM, David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:

> Traversable currently has traverse, sequenceA, sequence, and mapM methods.
> sequence and mapM seem to be dinosaurs now. I'd like to suggest that
> sequenceA be turned into a deprecated function and mapM be moved from
> Control.Monad to Data.Traversable and re-exported from Control.Monad.
>
> I expect most instance declarations to survive unchanged. The only CPP
> pain point will be that instances that define sequenceA will have to define
> sequence instead.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20150926/2bce0011/attachment.html>