To be clear I was referring to the generalization of mconcat, not to Petr's Dual suggestion

That said, I have a very strong issue with the proposed change to Dual's mconcat. The issue with the Dual suggestion is that reverse requires the list to be finite. This means that even if the monoid could be productive before with Dual it can't with that definition.

-Edward

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Edward Kmett <ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm personally -1 from a base organizational standpoint following Reid's reasoning. 

This is just me expressing my own personal opinion rather than any official core libraries committee stance at this time.

-Edward

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Petr Pudlák <petr.mvd@gmail.com> wrote:

2015-08-31 21:00 GMT+02:00 David Feuer <david.feuer@gmail.com>:

The theory of mconcat is that it should handle monoids that need to be summed in some special way. I don't know if anyone actually uses it so, however. Still, Reid is right that the circular dependency sets a very high bar.

I guess the [a] monoid is a good example where using mconcat can make a difference.

What seems to be an omission is that Dual has no implementation of mconcat. It'd make sense to define 'mconcat = mconcat . reverse' - if the original monoid benefits from a certain order of operations, we should keep the order.

_______________________________________________
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