I went with the default being to avoid prematurely forcing a bottom when possible, to avoid being called out by the strictness police, but I'm not terribly wedded to the behavior.

-Edward

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Isaac Dupree <ml@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
On 01/21/11 18:33, Edward Kmett wrote:
I'd like to propose adding the following missing instances to Data.Foldable
and Data.Traversable respectively, since there isn't a canonical location
that they could be added outside of those packages without orphans, their
definition is unambiguous, and they are quite useful (plus, I happen to need
them for a monad transformer in my adjunctions package).

instance Foldable (Either a) where
  foldMap f (Left a) = mempty
  foldMap f (Right b) = f b

instance Foldable ((,)e) where
  foldMap f ea = f (snd ea)

instance Traversable (Either a) where
  traverse f (Left a) = pure (Left a)
  traverse f (Right a) = Right<$>  f a

instance Traversable ((,)e) where
  traverse f ~(e,a) = (,) e<$>  f a

Those look correct.  Is there some reason you chose to make the (,) instances less strict in the pair?  For example, traverse on "undefined" gives you, modulo the applicative layer, "(undefined, f undefined)".  (I haven't thought of a reason (practical or theoretical) for either behavior.)

-Isaac

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