Proposal: Add conspicuously missing Functor instances for tuples

[amindfv at gmail.com]

I share Henning's concerns. Can someone provide a realistic example of where an instance for (,,) or (,,,) *is* desirable?

Tom


> El 18 ene 2016, a las 15:59, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> escribió:
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016, at 12:44, Christopher Allen wrote:
>> I've addressed this here:
>> 
>> http://bitemyapp.com/posts/2015-10-19-either-is-not-arbitrary.html
>> 
>> The thousand-papercuts opposition to typeclass instances on the premise
>> that a Functor for (a, b, c) maps over the final type not making sense is a
>> rejection of how higher kinded types and typeclasses work together. This
>> is natural and predictable if one bothers to explain it.
> 
> The behavior is indeed predictable, but I think Henning is arguing (and
> I would agree) that it is *undesirable*.
> 
> That being said, I think the ship has sailed on the "should tuples be a
> Functor/etc" discussion. The current proposal is aimed at making the set
> of available instances more consistent across tuples, which I'd argue is
> a good thing regardless of one's position on the specific class.
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries