If this is for convenience for arrows, isn't it better implemented as?:

dup :: Arrow a => a b (b,b)
dup = id &&& id

2018년 10월 28일 (일) 15:03, Dan Burton <danburton.email@gmail.com>님이 작성:
There is precedent in the arrow literature for calling this function "dup". For example, on page 55 of this paper:
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/arrows-jfp/arrows-jfp.pdf

-- Dan Burton


On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:48 AM David Feuer <david.feuer@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not opposed. Should this be called dup or diagonal? What about larger tuples?

Side note:
\x -> (x,x) = join (,)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 6:03 PM Ivan Perez <ivan.perez@keera.co.uk> wrote:
Dear all,

The function \x -> (x,x) is very convenient when working with arrows.

Would it be appropriate to add it to Data.Tuple?

Cheers,

Ivan

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries