Improving the instances of Data.Functor.{Product,Sum}

[David Feuer]

I oppose the QuantifiedConstraints version because:

1. It is more complicated than the FlexibleConstraints one.

2. It is strictly less general than the FlexibleConstraints one.

3. There is no apparent benefit to pay for detriments 1 and 2.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 11:59 PM chessai . <chessai1996 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider the Eq instance for these types. Currently we rely on:
>
> (Eq1 f, Eq1 g, Eq a)
>
> But some potential improvements include changing to:
>
> (Eq (f (g a))) (FlexibleContexts)
>
> or
>
> (forall x. Eq x => Eq (f x), forall x. Eq x => Eq (g x), Eq a)
> (QuantifiedConstraints)
>
> There was a discussion sometime last year about the same thing
> regarding Semigroup/Monoid instances for `Compose` [1]. Additionally,
> the question has been raised again for Data.Functor.{Product,Sum} on
> Gitlab [2, 3]. There has been no consensus in either case, but that's
> not too worrying as both discussions have been brief. I'm currently
> not happy with the {Eq,Ord,Show}{1,2} family of classes, and would
> hope to work toward their removal, or at least the shrinking of their
> presence in base. Even though the linked proposals are about a single
> type, I think it's important that we come up with a decision and stick
> with it. Having different APIs for different types here would be
> pretty confusing, and some could even say sloppy.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> [1]: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2019-July/029771.html
> [2]: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/issues/17015
> [3]: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/merge_requests/1704
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200505/222b7c5d/attachment.html>