Re: Proposal: add Monoid1 and Semigroup1 classes

Re 2 for rank-2, there is already precedent for using 2 for lifting over two arguments, so semantic confusion sadly remains: E.g. Eq2 p means Eq a, Eq b => Eq (p a b) or Eq2 p means Eq a => Eq1 (p a) -Edward On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Mario Blažević wrote:

On 2016-10-01 04:07 AM, Edward Kmett wrote:

...

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.

The standard fully parametric classes like Functor and Monad have no suffix at all. It makes sense to reserve the suffix "1" for non-parametric lifting classes. Can you suggest a different naming scheme for parametric classes of a higher order?

I'm also guilty of abusing the suffix "1", at least provisionally, but these are different beasts yet again:

-- | Equivalent of 'Functor' for rank 2 data types class Functor1 g where fmap1 :: (forall a. p a -> q a) -> g p -> g q

https://github.com/blamario/grampa/blob/master/Text/Grampa/Classes.hs

What would be a proper suffix here? I guess Functor2 would make sense, for a rank-2 type?

...

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 mailto: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 mailto:Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries 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