August 2015 - Libraries

Proposal: merge either into transformers
by Roman Cheplyaka 03 Jan '17

03 Jan '17

I propose to add the sole module of the 'either' package[1], Control.Monad.Trans.Either, to the transformers package. It provides EitherT, a very basic and fundamental data type. The difference between EitherT and ErrorT is that the latter has an Error constraint, which is used to imlement 'fail'. Note that 'either' depends on the 'semigroupoids' and 'semigroup' packages to provide appropriate instances. The proposal is not to add those instances to 'transformers' to avoid additional dependencies. The instances can then be left in the 'either' package or moved to the 'semigroupoids' and 'semigroup' packages respectively. ('semigroupoids' already depends on 'transformers', while 'semigroups' does not). Compared to the 'either' package, Show, Read, Eq and Ord instances will be dropped to keep the code Haskell2010 (those instances require FlexibleInstances, FlexibleContexts, and UndecidableInstances). The patch is attached. [*] [*] against transformers-0.3.0.0, because the darcs version is not buildable (Control/Monad/Signatures.hs is not in the repository). Roman

22 72

Proposal: add liftA4 and liftA5 to match liftM4 and liftM5
by David Feuer 14 Jul '16

14 Jul '16

Since Applicative is supposed to be important now, I figure we should get these in.

12 33

Proposal: add chunksOf to Data.Sequence
by David Feuer 06 May '16

06 May '16

Data.List.Split.chunksOf n xs breaks up a list xs into chunks of n elements each. The internal "splitMap" function Data.Sequence uses to implement zipWith supports a simple and efficient implementation of chunksOf. All in favor, say "aye". Also, I'm still waiting for a response (any response) to my "cycleN" proposal. David

5 6

Proposal: Export cycleN from Data.Sequence
by David Feuer 26 Apr '16

26 Apr '16

Yesterday I rewrote `*>` for Data.Sequence (again), using an internal function cycleN :: Int -> Seq a -> Seq a The name of the function is based on that of Data.Sequence.iterateN. cycleN takes a sequence and cycles it as many times as requested: cycleN 0 $ fromList [1,2] = [] cycleN 5 $ fromList [1,2] = [1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2] The function is written to maximize sharing in the result sequence and to minimize construction time. Specifically, cycleN n xs should take something like O(|xs| + log n) space (of which all but O(log |xs| + log n) is shared with the structure of xs) and O(log |xs| + log n) time. With current (on GitHub) Data.Sequence exports, the only way to get this functionality with these time and space bounds is to combine replicate with *> : cycleN n xs = replicate n () *> xs This strikes me as a bit unpleasant. David

3 3

Proposal: Make Semigroup as a superclass of Monoid
by Jeremy 11 Apr '16

11 Apr '16

The proposal to make Semigroup a superclass of Monoid was discussed a while ago [1], and the conclusion was to "put this off until the dust has settled from the AMP and FT changes". Now that 7.10 is out, I would like to re-propose. The proposed plan is similar to AMP, but less invasive, as (in my subjective experience) user-defined Monoids are much less common than user-defined Monads. 1. GHC 7.12 will include Semigroup and NonEmpty in base. All Monoid instances, and anything else which forms a Semigroup, will have a Semigroup instance. GHC will issue a warning when it encounters an instance of Monoid which is not an instance of Semigroup. 2. GHC >7.12 will define Monoid as a subclass of Semigroup. Stage 2 could be delayed - or in the extreme case, cancelled - if the warnings following stage 1 indicate that the proposal would cause significant breakage of existing code, although this is not anticipated. The rationale for this change is: 1. Semigroup is a popular package (this is relevant in combination with the following point). 2. Using an existing Monoid as a Semigroup requires redefining it (or WrappedMonoid), leading to much boilerplate and duplication. 3. NonEmpty is often redefined by beginners (or those who don't think it's worth having an extra dependency for). [1] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2013-June/020188.html -- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Proposal-Make-Semigroup-as-a-superclas… Sent from the Haskell - Libraries mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

28 61

[containers] Proposal: Change to the Data.Map Monoid
by Nick Partridge 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

Hi, Currently the Monoid instance for Data.Map is implemented using union/unions, which are left biased. On key collision, it discards values from the right hand side of `mappend` - https://github.com/ghc/packages-containers/blob/bae098fb0a3994bc2b0ec331300… If you compare this with the Monoid for Maybe, it's like we're defaulting to First as the monoid instance for maps. A more useful instance, however very much a breaking change, would be to make the instance depend on a Monoid (or better yet, a Semigroup) for the values in the map: instance Monoid v => Monoid (Map k v) where mappend = unionWith mappend This lets us build up maps with values in a useful Monoid, and mappend them with gusto. Thoughts? - Nick Partridge Discussion period: 2 weeks.

15 22

Proposal: generalise Monoid's mconcat
by Fermin Reig 01 Sep '15

01 Sep '15

We could generalise: mconcat:: [a] -> a mconcat = foldr mappend memtpy to: mconcat:: Foldable t => t a -> a mconcat = foldr mappend memtpy -- even -- mconcat = fold Fermin PS: I cannot find a proposal for this in the archives, apologies if it's been raised before and I missed it.

9 11

Documentation for GHC.IO.Exception
by Phil Ruffwind 29 Aug '15

29 Aug '15

On Hackage, there seems to be no documentation for GHC.IO.Exception in base, but the package can in fact be imported so it's not exactly an internal package. directory and likely many other packages do use the GHC-specific error types like InappropriateType in exceptions, so it would be useful if there were a documentation page for these things even if there isn't any text. As it is right now, the discoverability of these error types is very low as you need to know the magical URL to show the source code: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base/docs/src/GHC.IO.Exception.html That's also partly a problem with Haddock; AFAIK there's no way to navigate to the Source Code packages of modules whose documentation is disabled, even though they are in fact present if you can figure out the URL. So would it be OK to open up this module or is there a reason for keeping them discreet?

1 0

Problem running zlib test suite: ghc: unrecognised flag: -fno-stack-protector
by Andrés Sicard-Ramírez 29 Aug '15

29 Aug '15

Hi, I'm trying of running the zlib test suite using GHC 7.10.2 and hsc2hs 0.67: $ darcs get http://code.haskell.org/zlib/ $ cd zlib $ cabal install $ cd test $ make test hsc2hs --cc=ghc --ld=ghc --lflag=-lz -o ../Codec/Compression/Zlib/Stream.hs ../Codec/Compression/Zlib/Stream.hsc ghc: unrecognised flag: -fno-stack-protector ... compiling ../Codec/Compression/Zlib/Stream_hsc_make.c failed (exit code 1) command was: ghc -c ../Codec/Compression/Zlib/Stream_hsc_make.c -o ../Codec/Compression/Zlib/Stream_hsc_make.o -fno-stack-protector -I/usr/local/stow/ghc-7.10.2/lib/ghc-7.10.2/include/ Am I doing something wrong? Best, -- Andrés

1 0

Cabal and simultaneous installations of the same package
by Simon Peyton Jones 29 Aug '15

29 Aug '15

Dear Cabal developers You'll probably have seen the thread about the Haskell Platform. Among other things, this point arose: | Another thing we should fix is the (now false) impression that HP gets in | the way of installing other packages and versions due to cabal hell. People mean different things by "cabal hell", but the inability to simultaneously install multiple versions of the same package, compiled against different dependencies is certainly one of them, and I think it is the one that Yitzchak is referring to here. But some time now GHC has allowed multiple versions of the same package (compiled against different dependencies) to be installed simultaneously. So all we need to do is to fix Cabal to allow it too, and thereby kill of a huge class of cabal-hell problems at one blow. But time has passed and it hasn't happened. Is this because I'm misunderstanding? Or because it is harder than I think? Or because there are much bigger problems? Or because there is insufficient effort available? Or what? Unless I'm way off beam, this "multiple installations of the same package" thing has been a huge pain forever, and the solution is within our grasp. What's stopping us grasping it? Simon

7 16