29 Nov
2010
29 Nov
'10
4:32 a.m.
On 11/29/10 3:39 AM, John Smith wrote:
Is there any intention to reorganise the standard class hierarchy, arranging them logically instead of in order of invention? I plagiarised the following example from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1634911/can-liftm-differ-from-lifta and Trac:
I'm not aware of any intention to do so, but I wholeheartedly approve of doing so. I'd probably leave fmap being called fmap though, in order to minimize breakage. Also, that enables the cute name for class Bifunctor f where gmap :: (a -> b) -> f a c -> f b c -- Live well, ~wren