I'm opposed to changing the names in either module. In modern code it
should be fairly rare to import Control.Arrow. In the cases that both are
needed qualified imports are available, and it wouldn't be worth breaking
existing code by renaming the class methods of Bifunctor.
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:58 AM Alexandre Rodrigues
Name collisions are always an issue, and I think you raise a valid point. However, in this case, does Haskell not already offer a solution? Qualified imports do add some overhead, but doing
```
import qualified Control.Arrow as A
import qualified Data.Bifunctor as B
foo :: Foo
foo = f . A.first . g
baz :: Baz
baz = h . B.first . i
```
does not seem too difficult.
On 08-05-2018 15:35, 박신환 wrote:
I had to import both Control.Arrow and Data.Bifunctor, and the name collision is annoying.
`first` and `second` from Data.Bifunctor should be given other names. I suggest (<$<) and (>$>), respectively.
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing listLibraries@haskell.orghttp://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries