On 29 November 2010 20:32, wren ng thornton
On 11/29/10 3:39 AM, John Smith wrote:
Is there any intention to reorganise the standard class hierarchy, arranging them logically instead of in order of invention? I plagiarised the following example from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1634911/can-liftm-differ-from-lifta and Trac:
I'm not aware of any intention to do so, but I wholeheartedly approve of doing so. I'd probably leave fmap being called fmap though, in order to minimize breakage. Also, that enables the cute name for
class Bifunctor f where gmap :: (a -> b) -> f a c -> f b c
I would prefer to call that "bimap" or something; to me gmap refers to mapping over a graph. -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com