+1 for the original proposal. These are valid default implementations. Nothing more to say. On 27.01.2014 14:29, Tom Ellis wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:32:04PM +0000, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
On 27/01/14 12:26, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Am 27.01.2014 13:23, schrieb Joachim Breitner:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 27.01.2014, 11:42 +0100 schrieb Sjoerd Visscher:
This seems rather pointless; I’m having trouble coming up with an example where mconcat would be easier or more elegant to implement. Do you have an example?
maybe cases where you implement mconcat for performance reasons anyways (but are there good examples for that?),
I think it is useful to define a custom mconcat in cases where it matters whether it is a left or a right fold.
and then you don’t want to be bothered with the simple cases....
You can still define your own mconcat and not use the default definition. There's no case for this proposal from that aspect.
Sure, but if you are going to define your own mconcat for performance reasons, it would then be nice not to *have to* define your own mappend, or mempty.
Tom _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
-- Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch. Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY andreas.abel@ifi.lmu.de http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/