Hi On 29 Jan 2008, at 12:29, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
I think we should ignore the generalization to genericSuperDuperConcatMapMXYZ for now :).
Why?
Orthogonality.
What's orthogonal to what, here? I'm trying to understand why the generalization is irrelevant (or merely unwelcome) to the discussion of whether or not the special case should be added to the library.
It is silly to have have superConcatMapM, but not superMapM. If that wants doing it should be a separate proposal after this one.
If you peer at it closely, you'll notice that traverse is kind of like a generalized mapM. If you peer at it closely, you'll notice that concatMapM, apart from being unnecessarily specific to lists and unnecessarily specific to monads, is a newtype isotope of foldMap. Is it worth thinking a bit more about how to exploit the functionality that's already in the library? All the best Conor