Re: [Haskell-cafe] Rationale for two separate map functions in ClassyPrelude

13 Feb 2015


      I feel a bit silly, but could you explain to me where the overlap is here?

On Sat Feb 14 2015 at 3:45:30 PM adam vogt  wrote:
...
Hi Clinton,
I think the problem is that the instance:
...
instance (Functor f) => CanMap (f a) b
is overlapped by instances for containers that take a parameter but
are not instances of Functor. For example:
...
instance (Unbox a, Unbox b) => CanMap (Data.Vector.Unboxed.Vector a) b
Using {-# LANGUAGE OverlappingInstances #-} is a big deal for some people.
Regards,
Adam
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Clinton Mead 
wrote:
...
ClassyPrelude has two map functions, namely:
1. "map"
2. "omap"
"map" works on any Functor. However, things like "Text" are not functors
as
they aren't generic containers. As can be seen in the following code:
module Main where
  import Prelude ()
  import ClassyPrelude
  import qualified Data.Text as T
  import Data.Char as C
main = do
    let l = [1,2,3] :: [Int]
    let t = (T.pack "Hello")
    let m = Just 5
    print $ map (*2) l
    print $ map (*2) m
    print $ omap C.toUpper t
    return ()
Notice one has to use "omap" to deal with the Text. The thing is, I
found it
trivially easy to get "map" to work for both calls. Here's the code:
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
module Main where
  import Prelude hiding (map)
  import qualified Data.Text as T
  import Data.Char as C
  import Control.Monad (Functor)
class CanMap a b where
    type Element a :: *
    type Container a b :: *
    map :: (Element a -> b) -> a -> Container a b
instance (Functor f) => CanMap (f a) b where
    type Element (f a) = a
    type Container (f a) b = f b
    map = fmap
instance CanMap T.Text Char where
    type Element T.Text = Char
    type Container T.Text Char = T.Text
    map = T.map
main = do
    let l = [1,2,3] :: [Int]
    let m = Just 5
    let t = (T.pack "Hello")
    print $ map (*2) l
    print $ map (*2) m
    print $ map C.toUpper t
    return ()
All that's required is to add instances to CanMap for any monomorphic
containers. ClassyPrelude already does this anyway with "omap" in the
Data.MonoTraversable module. I suspect however there's a good reason I'm
missing about why there should be two separate map functions to deal with
these alternate situations, but I'm wondering what that is.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Rationale for two separate map functions in ClassyPrelude

Amos Robinson