Proposal: add foldMapA to Data.Foldable or Control.Applicative

Carter Schonwald carter.schonwald at gmail.com
Thu May 9 14:35:16 UTC 2019


Its a complicated landscape, and we're still learning.

if a new combinator is hard to write:
a) how do we help educate folks into seeing it as an easy combinator
b) what are the with/without fusion cost models of different
implementations?
c)  is it useful?

I’m slightly inclined to support inclusion.

One question I have is whether it’s definable via foldmap itself ?

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:36 AM David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2019, 12:12 AM Bryan Richter <b at chreekat.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> At the risk of invoking the gods of Language Blorp, I will note that as a
>> working programmer I know exactly what Applicative, Traversable, and Monoid
>> are (from Vanessa's original proposal), but the unfortunately-named getAp
>> is something I will only learn about begrudgingly.
>>
>
> That seems unfortunate. Learning to use such types is pretty useful. I'd
> recommend that every Haskell programmer get to know all the types in
> Data.Monoid and come to an understanding of what they're good for.
>
>>
>
>> What you consider "so simple we don't need to define it" took a rather
>> lengthy email to describe. Are you sure it's not worth actually defining?
>>
>
> So ... that long post was about trying to prove what I intuitively thought
> *must* be true. In the end, I wasn't quite able to finish the proof, but I
> did at least manage to convince myself that my intuition was correct. It's
> true that this sort of intuition takes a certain amount of time to develop.
> In the case of a really important operation, yeah, we should package it up.
> But is this operation important enough? I'm not really convinced yet.
>
>
> If nothing else, the next time someone searches Hoogle for a function
>> matching its type signature, perhaps it will be an opportunity for someone
>> like me to peer beneath the hood and learn something new.
>>
>
> That's valid. But ... there are lots of opportunities for that sort of
> thing already. Is it worth the API clutter to add another one?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190509/6ee0f126/attachment.html>


More information about the Libraries mailing list