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

[David Feuer]

Carter, I already showed that it is, and Dmitriy already refined that
definition.

On Thu, May 9, 2019, 10:35 AM Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20190509/816738bc/attachment.html>