Process thoughts Re: clamp function in base

[Carter Schonwald]

Glad it was a good experience for you!

I think, especially for library proposals (though aspirationally For
language/ compiler changes), any design /api /spec change greatly benefits
from having a working matching patch we can engage with!

This helps for both impact assessments when preexisting code might have a
name collision or it’s a change in existing semantics. OR just for refining
and improving corner cases. Such as ed pointing out how we can define clamp
generically in a manner that has humane behavior for float and double.

For stuff that’s too complicated to have a simple patch, I strongly
encourage folks to email libraries with a request for feedback on an idea
to get feedback or confidence  in the direction before investing time into
making. Such patches.

This is not to say this should be ironclad. But I think it’s a workflow
that helps everyone be on the same page and helps make sure we can move
quickly when there’s clarity. As happened with sandys patch!

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:22 PM Sandy Maguire <sandy at sandymaguire.me> wrote:

> My pleasure! Thanks for not letting the experience be a bureaucratic
> nightmare!
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:19 AM Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for helping make this happen!
>>
>> Should be merged In later today!
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 2:19 PM Sandy Maguire <sandy at sandymaguire.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds good. For whatever reason the tupled arguments make me feel
>>> better about the `high<low` having undefined behavior. I'll make the change
>>> on the MR.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 8:22 AM Emily Pillmore <emilypi at cohomolo.gy>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, though, David has good points about unnecessary laziness. I'm fine
>>>> with the name and the signature
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> clamp :: Ord a ⇒ (a,a) → a → a
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> (or some variation on the theme).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:38 PM, Sandy Maguire <sandy at sandymaguire.me>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that base is missing the very standard function `clamp
>>>>> :: Ord a => a -> a -> a -> a`:
>>>>>
>>>>> ```haskell
>>>>> clamp :: Ord a => a -> a -> a -> a
>>>>> clamp low high = min high .max low
>>>>> ```
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose it be added to Data.Ord. It's useful, generic, and
>>>>> non-trivial to get
>>>>>
>>>>> right (the "big" number goes with "min" -- causes me cognitive
>>>>>
>>>>> dissonance every time.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Sandy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Libraries mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Libraries at haskell.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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/20200911/ffa74369/attachment.html>