April 2017 - Libraries

Re: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")
by Theodore Lief Gannon 01 May '17

01 May '17

I'm also -1 to an explicit code of conduct. Sure, once in a while someone has to step in with Wheaton's Law or what I can't resist calling Simon Says; but all it takes is a gentle reminder. Nobody here is genuinely contemptuous toward anyone else. The barrier of entry is too high -- the trolls are happy enough on reddit. ;) On Apr 6, 2017 6:17 AM, "Andreas Abel" <andreas.abel(a)ifi.lmu.de> wrote: On 03.04.2017 10:42, Henning Thielemann wrote: > On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote: > > I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be >> useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct. Many >> online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for >> everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten >> standard. Any views on that? >> > > I think these Code of Conducts make things even worse because then some > people start to check every word against these codes. Instead I suggest > we make more use of humor. E.g. Carter Schonwald's comment about grumpy > people made me think about renaming my prelude-compat package to > grumpy-prelude. :-) > I agree with Henning. The discussion gets heated because people are passionate about Haskell; and the latter is a good thing. I rather stomach some insults on a mailing list than having a formal code of conduct. Severe violations of politeness can be pointed out without having such a formal code. We can apply common sense. -- Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch. Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden andreas.abel(a)gu.se http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/ _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries(a)haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

6 6

Re: Functor, Applicative, Monad, Foldable, Traversable instances for (, , ) a b
by Jonathon Delgado 27 Apr '17

27 Apr '17

Code please? An actual, concrete example?

1 0

Functor, Applicative, Monad, Foldable, Traversable instances for (, , ) a b
by Fumiaki Kinoshita 27 Apr '17

27 Apr '17

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

22 66

Add Arg{Min,Max} pattern synonyms to Data.Semigroup
by Baldur Blöndal 22 Apr '17

22 Apr '17

Add (explicitly-bidirectional record) pattern synonyms to Data.Semigroup: pattern ArgMin :: a -> b -> ArgMin a b pattern ArgMin {minArg, minValue} = Min (Arg minArg minValue) pattern ArgMax :: a -> b -> ArgMax a b pattern ArgMax {maxArg, maxValue} = Max (Arg maxArg maxValue) As described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13572

4 4

Is mkTrApp unsafe?
by Andrew Martin 15 Apr '17

15 Apr '17

I've been playing around with the GHC 8.2 release candidate. In Type.Reflection.Unsafe, there's a really handy function named mkTrApp. Everything else in that module is pretty evidently unsafe, but I'm not so sure about mkTrApp. I'm wondering if it should actually be exported by Type.Reflection instead or if I've missed some way it could be used to create an ill-kinded TypeRep. -Andrew Martin

2 2

Banded Matrices
by Dominic Steinitz 13 Apr '17

13 Apr '17

Hi Henning, I just noticed https://hackage.haskell.org/package/hmatrix-banded. I have just made a PR to hmatrix to add a tridiagonal solver: https://github.com/albertoruiz/hmatrix/pull/224. I don’t think there is anything to do but I thought it worth sharing. Dominic Steinitz dominic(a)steinitz.org http://idontgetoutmuch.wordpress.com

1 0

Re: Constraints on definition of `length` should be strengthened
by Anthony Clayden 11 Apr '17

11 Apr '17

[Errk, somehow posted this with no Subject. Trying again.] > On Sun Apr 9 19:24:12 UTC 2017, Sven Panne wrote: >> 2017-04-09 2:01 GMT+02:00 Ben Franksen : >>> Am 08.04.2017 um 04:03 schrieb Anthony Clayden: >>> [...] So to take your examples from an earlier thread, >>> what do you expect Haskell to do here?: >>> >>> maximum (True,2) => ? >>> minimum ((3, 4),5) => ? -- i.e. :: ((Int, Int), Int) >>> sum (7,3.14) => ? -- i.e. :: (Int, Double) >>> product (Left $ error "Errk") => ? -- i.e. :: >>> Either e Int >> >> I (and others) think these should be type errors. >> > Exactly. OK. Do y'all think there should be a `toList` method for them? Indeed, should there be a `toList` method available for any data type that doesn't implement `fromList`? Perhaps `toList` should not be a method of Foldable? > >>> Do you expect Foldable (a, a) to behave differently >>> vs Foldable (b, a) vs Foldable ((a, a), a) vs ...? >>> >> It would be nice if we could all agree on removing these >> instances. >> > Yep. :-) >> BTW, I find it remarkable that of those who defend these >> instances, few seem to be especially interested >> in clarifying the OP's question: what >> laws exactly do we expect for Foldable? [...] >> One of the Laws appears to be that `length` etc behave as `length . toList`. AntC

1 0

None
by Anthony Clayden 11 Apr '17

11 Apr '17

> On Sun Apr 9 19:24:12 UTC 2017, Sven Panne wrote: >> 2017-04-09 2:01 GMT+02:00 Ben Franksen : >>> Am 08.04.2017 um 04:03 schrieb Anthony Clayden: >>> [...] So to take your examples from an earlier thread, >>> what do you expect Haskell to do here?: >>> >>> maximum (True,2) => ? >>> minimum ((3, 4),5) => ? -- i.e. :: ((Int, Int), Int) >>> sum (7,3.14) => ? -- i.e. :: (Int, Double) >>> product (Left $ error "Errk") => ? -- i.e. :: >>> Either e Int >> >> I (and others) think these should be type errors. >> > Exactly. OK. Do y'all think there should be a `toList` method for them? Indeed, should there be a `toList` method available for any data type that doesn't implement `fromList`? Perhaps `toList` should not be a method of Foldable? > >>> Do you expect Foldable (a, a) to behave differently >>> vs Foldable (b, a) vs Foldable ((a, a), a) vs ...? >>> >> It would be nice if we could all agree on removing these instances. >> > Yep. :-) >> BTW, I find it remarkable that of those who defend these instances, few >> seem to be especially interested in clarifying the OP's question: what >> laws exactly do we expect for Foldable? [...] >> One of the Laws appears to be that `length` etc behave as `length . toList`. AntC

1 0

Giving up boxes package
by David Feuer 10 Apr '17

10 Apr '17

I've been way too busy with GHC and containers to have time to devote to boxes. If anyone wants to take over, they are welcome. The main priority right now is improving documentation, but someone also needs to make sure it works with 8.2 as soon as its dependencies do.

1 0

Re: Constraints on definition of `length` should be strengthened
by Anthony Clayden 10 Apr '17

10 Apr '17

> On Tue Apr 4 06:50:55 UTC 2017, Sven Panne wrote: >> 2017-04-04 8:15 GMT+02:00 Vladislav Zavialov: >>> Tuples are unbiased cartesian products, full stop. >> >> This statement is not correct. > According to probably all the math books in the world, > the statement is correct, > at least if we want to see tuples as cartesian products. .. Sven, I have a lot of sympathy with the digruntlement about Foldable `length` over tuples. But if you're going to start appealing to math, you'd better get your math correct. Whether or not tuples are unbiased, even wikipedia will tell you they're not commutative. So to take your examples from an earlier thread, what do you expect Haskell to do here?: maximum (True,2) => ? minimum ((3, 4),5) => ? -- i.e. :: ((Int, Int), Int) sum (7,3.14) => ? -- i.e. :: (Int, Double) product (Left $ error "Errk") => ? -- i.e. :: Either e Int Do you expect Foldable (a, a) to behave differently vs Foldable (b, a) vs Foldable ((a, a), a) vs ...? Let's get everybody agreed on that. Then we can talk about our currying/kind system. Note that there's been an `instance Foldable Maybe` for ever, and `toList` applied to that returns a 0-or-1 length list. >> Look at their kind: >> >> > :k (,) >> > (,) :: * -> * -> * >> >> The same currying business is going on here. [...] > That's an artifact of our kind system, > not a consequence of the usual definition of cartesian products. AntC

4 3