I'm somewhat weakly against these, simply because they haven't seen broad adoption in the wild in any of the attempts to introduce them elsewhere, and they don't quite fit the naming convention of the other Foo1 classes in Data.Functor.Classes

Eq1 f says more or less that Eq a => Eq (f a).

Semigroup1 in your proposal makes a stronger claim. Semgiroup1 f is saying forall a. (f a) is a semigroup parametrically. Both of these constructions could be useful, but they ARE different constructions.

If folks had actually been using, say, the Plus and Alt classes from semigroupoids or the like more or less at all pretty much anywhere, I could maybe argue towards bringing them up towards base, but I've seen almost zero adoption of the ideas over multiple years -- and these represent yet _another_ point in the design space where we talk about semigroupal and monoidal structures where f is a Functor instead. =/

Many points in the design space, and little demonstrated will for adoption seems to steers me to think that the community isn't ready to pick one and enshrine it some place central yet.

Overall, -1.

-Edward

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 7:25 PM, David Feuer <david.feuer@gmail.com> wrote:

I've been playing around with the idea of writing Haskell 2010 type classes for finite sequences and non-empty sequences, somewhat similar to Michael Snoyman's Sequence class in mono-traversable. These are naturally based on Monoid1 and Semigroup1, which I think belong in base.

class Semigroup1 f where
(<<>>) :: f a -> f a -> f a
class Semigroup1 f => Monoid1 f where
mempty1 :: f a

Then I can write

class (Monoid1 t, Traversable t) => Sequence t where
singleton :: a -> t a
-- and other less-critical methods

class (Semigroup1 t, Traversable1 t) => NESequence where
singleton1 :: a -> t a
-- etc.

I can, of course, just write my own, but I don't think I'm the only one using such.

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries