I hate using RULES for this sort of thing. Logically, we should probably have Unzippable f => Functor f, but that's unlikely to fly. We could do that evil default signature thing for an Unzippable class.
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 05.12.2014, 17:38 -0500 schrieb David Feuer:
>
> Am Freitag, den 05.12.2014, 14:09 -0800 schrieb Eric Mertens:
> > Would it be significantly better than just having/using the
> following
> > definition?
> >
> > unzipF :: Functor f => f (a, b) -> (f a, f b)
> > unzipF x = (fmap fst x, fmap snd x)
>
> yes, I guess that would be sufficient. Something for
> Data.Functor?
>
> This looks like it should be the default implementation of an
> Unzippable class, rather than a standalone function.
>
Clearly, every Functor isunzippable.
What do you expect to be Unzippable that is not a functor?
Or are you worried about performance, and allow better implementations?
Then I hope we can do that without touching the desired API, e.g. using
RULEs.
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries