<div dir="ltr">Well, it so far has definitely put the preponderance of weight of opinion on just replacing the definitions in the Prelude with Foldable and Traversable definitions.<div><br></div><div style>I do think we should probably move it to another topic, as we're definitely not talking about whenJust. (In particular a +1 on this stuff is effectively a -1 on the original topic!)</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Carter Schonwald <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carter.schonwald@gmail.com" target="_blank">carter.schonwald@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Do the additional votes on foldable / traversable change the outcome?<span></span> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br><br>On Sunday, May 19, 2013, Edward Kmett wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">The main utility in removing the crippled versions entirely is that you don't wind up with conflict, but if they are already gone then there is no conflict (within base) in moving the existing Foldable and Traversable interfaces into the Prelude.<div>
<br></div><div>I did say when I made the suggestion that I didn't think it'd make it past the objections, though.</div><div><br></div><div><div>I'm personally against removing the existing mapM, etc. definitions from the Prelude without replacing them with the combinators from Foldable/Traversable as it would break strictly more code, and breaks a lot more combinators than you would think, concat, sum, product, etc. are all redefined in Foldable to be more general.</div>
<div></div></div><div><br></div><div>5 +1 votes for just fixing the Prelude to swap in the definitions from Foldable and Traversable.<br></div><div><br></div><div>3 +1 votes for removing everything that conflicts with Foldable and Traversable from the Prelude. </div>
<div><br></div><div>And 2 votes against doing anything.<br></div><div><div><br></div><div>At this point it is clear that no position has won more than a plurality of the popular opinion, so I resignedly retract the proposal and let the vocal 20% win.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Edward</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM, John Lato <span dir="ltr"><<a>jwlato@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><p dir="ltr"><br>
On May 18, 2013 10:09 PM, "Ian Lynagh" <<a>ian@well-typed.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:40:45PM +0200, Bas van Dijk wrote:<br>
> > On 15 May 2013 18:14, Edward Kmett <<a>ekmett@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > Personally, I'd be all for just moving Foldable (and Traversable) into the<br>
> > > Prelude and retiring the monomorphic versions of the functions they supply.<br>
><br>
> I'd prefer to remove the monomorphic functions, but not to add anything<br>
> to Prelude.</p>
</div><p dir="ltr">+1 to Ian's suggestion. <br>
</p>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Libraries mailing list<br>
<a>Libraries@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>