We shouldn't remove it because of fold. We should (perhaps) remove it
because of foldl'. I don't really think unions or unionsWith should
ever have existed. I certainly don't think we should remove union,
because Set offers more than one reasonable Semigroup; <> isn't a very
clear spelling of union.
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Joachim Breitner
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 03.02.2018, 20:44 -0500 schrieb David Feuer:
It is fold, although fold is not so great for lists in this context. It's also foldl' union Set.empty, which is better for lists, and probably also for balanced trees. I initially thought that we should surely generalize, but now another alternative comes to mind: remove. As a containers maintainer, I believe we should either:
1. Generalize as proposed, or 2. Deprecate and remove.
I'm currently somewhat in favor of the second option.
please don’t remove!
…is first reaction. Now I just have to rationalize my gut feeling…
I like the readability of it in code, it is more descriptive. It is an important analogue to unionsWith. If we remove unions because of fold, shouldn’t we also remove union because of (<>)?
Cheers, Joachim
-- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries