Proposal: add a foldable law

[David Feuer]

I withdraw my statement about infinite structures (I'm not really sure one
way or the other). I re-assert my claim about IO.

On Sat, May 5, 2018, 11:17 PM Gershom B <gershomb at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 5, 2018 at 10:43:57 PM, David Feuer (david.feuer at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Your law doesn't blow up for infinite structures (your care wasn't for
> nothing) but it doesn't say very much about them.
>
> No, I’m pretty sure that the two formulations say exactly the same thing
> in this case. I do think that your formulation is more elegant and if that
> helps the committee along to a decision, as I said, I’m more than happy if
> they go with it. I just want to be sufficiently clear on what is being said
> by either formulation. And if you do have a good example where they differ
> on infinite structures, it would be interesting to see.
>
> -g
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20180506/124820a8/attachment.html>