On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Peebles <pumpkingod@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not be explicit about the replacement strategy by injecting your values
> into First/Last? My point is that in terms of functionality, using mappend
> on the values is strictly more general than the current instance. It seems
> unfortunate to be stuck with the current instance for historical reasons,
> but I guess that's how a lot of this stuff works :/

Yeah, I suppose it would be a bit more regular that way.  I'm always
reluctant to map newtypes over things other than lists because I don't
trust there to be a RULES that will eliminate it, but I suppose for
Map there must be.  I guess I wouldn't mind updating my code if the
definition changed.  It's hard to change a general purpose method
though, simply because searching for it in your code will turn up so
many false positives.