> As for a better/no prelude, this has been
talked about for years, but a wholesale replacement of the prelude hasn't
happened yet and probably won't. Waiting for something that won't happen is
no reason to block gradual improvement.

Note that I am not arguing for waiting for a wholesale replacement! I am all in favor of gradual improvement -- in fact, I think that's the only way to go about improving the prelude.

But that gradual improvement can be *targeted*. We can have a plan, instead of having dozens of tiny proposals about adding this function or generalizing another function or deprecating a function. That is what I was arguing for.

-- Andrew

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:24 AM, John Lato <jwlato@gmail.com> wrote:

-1.


On 08:05, Sun, Mar 15, 2015 Jeremy <voldermort@hotmail.com> wrote:
+1 for generalising map.

People who think that it will break lots of code should compile some popular
packages and see for themselves. As for a better/no prelude, this has been
talked about for years, but a wholesale replacement of the prelude hasn't
happened yet and probably won't. Waiting for something that won't happen is
no reason to block gradual improvement.



--
View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Generalizing-map-tp5766936p5767023.html
Sent from the Haskell - Libraries mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
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