Oh, you're right, there probably isn't anything unzippable that's not a functor, unless you go really wild. So could we just add unzip to the Functor class?

On Dec 5, 2014 5:49 PM, "Joachim Breitner" <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:

Hi,


Am Freitag, den 05.12.2014, 17:38 -0500 schrieb David Feuer:

>
>         Am Freitag, den 05.12.2014, 14:09 -0800 schrieb Eric Mertens:
>         > Would it be significantly better than just having/using the
>         following
>         > definition?
>         >
>         > unzipF :: Functor f => f (a, b) -> (f a, f b)
>         > unzipF x = (fmap fst x, fmap snd x)
>
>         yes, I guess that would be sufficient. Something for
>         Data.Functor?
>
> This looks like it should be the default implementation of an
> Unzippable class, rather than a standalone function.
>

Clearly, every Functor isunzippable.

What do you expect to be Unzippable that is not a functor?

Or are you worried about performance, and allow better implementations?
Then I hope we can do that without touching the desired API, e.g. using
RULEs.

Greetings,
Joachim

--
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de  • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries