Not sure if I’m correct on this, but wouldn’t you get space leaks in the right-strict version as well? Because the Just constructor itself isn’t strict, you still build up a long chain of <>. In the right-lazy version, you build up a long chain of maybe a (a<>), which is more expensive, yes, but not asymptotically. In other words, if you’ve got a space leak in the right-lazy version, you’ll also have one in the right-strict version.

On 23 May 2018, at 14:54, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

yeah ... i agreed with Eric,
we almost need Lazy and Strict versions of monoid and each blows up in different ways. I definitely had epic space leaks from the lazy Maybe Monoid 

-1 :)

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Eric Mertens <emertens@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,

I think changing the strictness of this function could have potentially dramatic performance effects on a wide range of existing code. Exploring existing code to understand the exact impacts would be a huge challenge, and this is a change that would be hard to phase in.

The arbitrariness of decisions like this is part of what makes the Monoid class a mess in the first place. Attaching instances like this to otherwise generic types forces us to make arbitrary choices, which are often not documented on the instances themselves.

While the left-bias behavior might make sense in the case of an instance like we have for First, I don't see why it would be considered more correct in this case.

I'm -1 on this proposal.

Best regards,
Eric Mertens

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:21 AM Andrew Martin <andrew.thaddeus@gmail.com> wrote:
I feel the the way concerning being lazy as possible and being left-strict where there is a symmetric choice to be made. This seems to be a common theme is base, although I’ve never seen it officially endorsed. I have seen Edward Kmett talk about this on reddit (contrasting it with the Monoid classes in strict-by-default languages), but I cannot find the thread.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 22, 2018, at 7:57 PM, Tikhon Jelvis <tikhon@jelv.is> wrote:

I think the extra laziness makes sense here—it matches the behavior of common functions like &&. My general expectation is that functions are as lazy as they can be and, in the case of operators with two arguments, that evaluation goes left-to-right. (Again like &&.)

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 4:37 PM, David Feuer <david.feuer@gmail.com> wrote:
I think extra laziness here would be a bit surprising.

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Donnacha Oisín Kidney
<mail@doisinkidney.com> wrote:
> The current semigroup instance  for Maybe looks like  this:
>
>     instance Semigroup a => Semigroup (Maybe a) where
>         Nothing <> b       = b
>         a       <> Nothing = a
>         Just a  <> Just b  = Just (a <> b)
>
> However, it could be lazier:
>
>     instance Semigroup a => Semigroup (Maybe a) where
>         Nothing <> b = b
>         Just a  <> b = Just (maybe a (a<>) b)
>
> This causes different behaviour for Data.Semigroup.First and
> Data.Monoid.First:
>
>     >>>  Data.Monoid.getFirst . foldMap pure $ [1..]
>     Just 1
>     >>>  fmap Data.Semigroup.getFirst . Data.Semigroup.getOption . foldMap
> (pure.pure) $ [1..]
>     _|_
>
> A different definition for `Option` gets back the old behaviour:
>
>     newtype LeftOption a = LeftOption { getLeftOption :: Maybe a }
>
>     instance Semigroup a => Semigroup (LeftOption a) where
>       LeftOption Nothing <> ys = ys
>       LeftOption (Just x) <> LeftOption ys = LeftOption (Just (maybe x (x<>)
> ys))
>
>     instance Semigroup a => Monoid (LeftOption a) where
>       mempty = LeftOption Nothing
>       mappend = (<>)
>
>     >>> fmap Data.Semigroup.getFirst . getLeftOption . foldMap (LeftOption .
> Just . Data.Semigroup.First) $ [1..]
>     Just 1
>
> Is there any benefit to the extra strictness? Should this be changed?
>
> Another consideration is that the definition could equivalently be
> right-strict, to get the desired behaviour for Last, but I think the
> left-strict definition probably follows the conventions more.
>
> I originally posted this to reddit
> (https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/8lbzan/semigroup_maybe_too_strict/)
> and was encouraged to post it here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries