31 Dec
2010
31 Dec
'10
4 a.m.
Is the problem the size of base per-se, or is it more the number of things in base for which the design might ideally be subject to change? If it's the latter, then that should maybe be the main consideration. (Personally I think I'd like to see 'Comonad' in base...) --Ben On 29 Dec 2010, at 12:37, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 04:43:24PM -0500, Mario Blažević wrote:
Why are Cofunctor and Comonad classes not a part of the base library?
Base is already too large IMO. Why do these classes /need/ to be in base, rather than another package?
Thanks Ian
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries