> I don’t have a particular problem with the Semi prefix on Foldable and Traversable. Intuitively, Monoid/Applicative give you tools for construction. Foldable/Traversable give you tools for consumption using those tools. The variance is flipped so the inheritance relation also flips.
I'm not well-versed in any kind of graduate-level mathematics, so I have no idea whether or not Keith or Edward's argument makes more sense. I just wanted to include this in the discussion so that people could respond to it here.
This is a well articulated set of points._______________________________________________On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Georgi Lyubenov <godzbanebane@gmail.com> wrote:+1 for the "not calling it Semifoldable"_______________________________________________On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:34 PM Henning Thielemann <lemming@henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, John Cotton Ericson wrote:
> Echoing Keith's point, "semi" to me means a weaker algebra; i.e. a
> super-class. Foldable => Semifoldable is thus totally wrong,
> "Semifoldable" is the sub-class.
me too
_______________________________________________
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