Haskell Foldable Wats

[Nathan Bouscal]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Kosyrev Serge <_deepfire at feelingofgreen.ru>
wrote:

>  Nathan Bouscal <nbouscal at gmail.com> writes:
> > What you seem to be saying, though, is one of two things.
> > 1: "In all contexts, you should only ever use tuples for this purpose",
> or
> > 2: "If you find another purpose to use tuples for, you shouldn't use
> them as Functors"
>  ..
> > Option 2 is more humble in that it allows for the possibility that
> > there's a use-case you're unfamiliar with, but instead it just makes
> > an arbitrary decision that, whatever this unfamiliar use-case is,
> > surely they shouldn't be using Functor. I don't see any way to justify
> > that position.
>
> Crucially -- this is a strawman -- nobody is arguing that Functor should
> never be defined for tuples.
>
> The argument is against forcing one specific instance of Functor on
> everybody.
>

As opposed to what other instance??


>
> --
> с уважениeм / respectfully,
> Косырев Сергей
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20160224/21a2837b/attachment.html>