Re: Bifoldable instance for Map

I don't find this argument convincing. We have Functor, Foldable, and Traversable instances even though mapWithKey, foldrWithKey, and traverseWithKey give more control than they do. We have a Semigroup instance even though unionWith and unionWithKey give more control than it does. As for the implementation, I'd be fine with changing it to be in terms of foldrWithKey. I just care that we have this instance somehow. Joseph C. Sible On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 6:23 AM Andreas Abel wrote:

Do we have any need for Bifoldable? We have

foldrWithKey :: (k -> a -> b -> b) -> b -> Map k a -> b foldlWithKey :: (a -> k -> b -> a) -> a -> Map k b -> a

These functions seem to give more control of how the fold happens.

And if we'd want Bifoldable, shouldn't the Bifoldable instance be implemented in terms of just foldrWithKey? Why have a recursive implementation?

Personally, I consider Bifoldable a fringe class, as I would hope that in general with fusion, I can just go via bimap and ordinary Foldable without much penalty.

On 2020-05-31 07:20, George Wilson wrote:

...

If you have a non-commutative monoid, the result could easily be different than you expect. eg. if you think it would do all keys and then all values, rather than interleaving (which is I assume the most efficient to implement). Despite that I'm still +1 on this.

On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 14:59, Joseph C. Sible wrote:

...

I'll admit I don't have a strong use case for this. I was just looking at instances and noticed that these seemed to be a weird omission, since there was an obvious definition. But I also don't think it's confusing at all. Since (,), Set, and HashSet are Foldable, and (,) and (,,) x are Bifoldable, it seems only logical to have Map and HashMap be Bifoldable too. What exactly would be confusing about any of these?

Joseph C. Sible

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:33 PM David Feuer wrote:

...

Let me take that back. I forgot how weird Bifoldable and Bitraversable are for product types and product-like types. Is this instance actually useful for anything, or is it mostly confusing?

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:46 PM David Feuer wrote:

...

I would go as far as to say we don't need to continue the proposal process here. We're doing it.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:44 PM David Feuer wrote:

...

This seems eminently reasonable to me. We must also be sure to add one to Data.HashMap if that's missing too.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 9:36 PM Joseph C. Sible wrote: > > I'd like to propose a change to the containers package: adding a > Bifoldable instance to Map. I briefly mentioned this on Reddit [1] and > no obvious problems were brought up. I submitted a PR implementing it > [2]. This seems like an obvious and straightforward instance to me. > Thoughts? > > Joseph C. Sible > > [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/fsgqd6/monthly_hask_anything_april... > [2]: https://github.com/haskell/containers/pull/714 > _______________________________________________ > 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