Add missing Monad/Traversable instances to tuples

[Henrik Nilsson]

Hi,

Andreas Abel wrote:

 > Abusing tuples for the writer monad was a bad idea in the first place.
 > There is no need to drive a bad idea further to the bitter end.
 >
 > Another way to put it:
 >
 > Not everything that is mathematically consequential is good software 
 > engineering practice.

I could not agree more. Except that I hold that the mathematical
consequence in this case only makes sense if a very particular
perspective is adopted. From other, equally valid, perspectives,

     sum (2,3) = 3

etc. is simply nonsensical.

-1 from me too.

And for the record:


Ganesh Sittampalam replied replied to Carter Schoenwald:
 > > to be clear, the arguments against are valid, but i thnk they could
 > > be
 > > addressed by identifying the changes / tooling that would enable a
 > > better fitting of intent. buggy code happens, fix the root, not the
 > > symptom
 >
 > For the record I think the root cause here *is* the instances, and
 > anything we do later is just sticking plaster. In my mind the
 > instances are the moral equivalent of using dynamic types.

I fully agree with this too, and if the only purpose of the
proposed tooling indeed is to be a "plaster" for users who
accidentally get hurt by sharp edges that really should not be
there in the first place, then that seems to be not only
wholly unnecessary, but a downright dangerous direction.

Best,

/Henrik



This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment. 

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
where permitted by law.