Hi all, [Context: I'm working on a CQRS/ES library and in the following, "i" is an identifier for an aggregate root, "e" is an event type, and the "Int" is a sequence number.] So, I have a data type data Foo i e = Foo i e Int where I want to have a corresponding data Batch i e = Batch i [Foo x e Int] (I'll come back to "x". It's just a metasyntactic variable for now. The point of the "Int" is that it's extra information that I really need to keep, but it's not essential to the Foo data structure itself.) with an operation batchFoos :: [Foo i e] -> [Batch i e] batchFoos = ... (basically a standard Data.List.groupBy where I compare for equality on the i's.) I also have an extraction function toList :: Batch i e -> (i, [Foo x e Int]) My question is then: What's the best thing to use for "x", Void or ()? The idea behind "collapsing" the "i" parameter away to an "x" is to signal to users to the API that they can be absolutely certain that when they call "toList", they can be sure that all the Foo's that they get back have the same i value, namely the one which is the first component of the tuple. An alernative I've been considering is actually to create a Foo' type which actually does eliminate the i parameter, but it seems a bit boilerplatey. (It's not a *lot* of code to duplicate, so if it looks like the best option, I'll do that... but it feels odd.) Anyone have any suggestions on what the best way to approach this would be? (Aside: AFAICT there's no reasonable way to implement anything like Foldable or Traversable to avoid the explicit "toList" function, right? AFAICT Foldable/Traversable constrain you to using the *actual* last type parameter, "e", for folding over. Are there any generic alternative type classes that let you "pick your own element type"? I'm guessing Traversal could possibly be that, but if I have to incur a Lens dependency, I'll just live with a "toList" function. This is just about whether it can be done elegantly -- it's not a big deal.) Regards,