Oh, you're right, there probably isn't anything unzippable that's not a
functor, unless you go really wild. So could we just add unzip to the
Functor class?
On Dec 5, 2014 5:49 PM, "Joachim Breitner"
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