Request for comment on new package

I've put together a small package for lazifying record types. There's a "classy" version in Data.Lazify and a Generic-only version in Data.Lazify.Generic. A few examples are below. I'd love to hear comments on what looks good and what should be changed before I make the first release. As usual, names are the hardest part. Note especially that the operator ($~) is defined in *both* Data.Lazify and Data.Lazify.Generic, and that no operator corresponds to genericLazify. Hrmm mumble. lazify (1, 2) = (1, 2) lazify undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) lazify undefined = Sum (_|_, _|_, _|_) genericLazify (1,2) = (1,2) genericLazify undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) genericLazify (Sum (MyCon x y)) = ... oops, MyType isn't an instance of Lazifiable lazifyGeneric (1,2) = (1,2) lazifyGeneric undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) lazifyGeneric (Sum (MyCon x y)) = Sum (MyCon x y) Thanks in advance, David

Of course, I forgot to actually link to the package candidate. Whoops!
Here it is:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lazify-0.1.0.0/candidate
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:25 AM David Feuer
I've put together a small package for lazifying record types. There's a "classy" version in Data.Lazify and a Generic-only version in Data.Lazify.Generic. A few examples are below. I'd love to hear comments on what looks good and what should be changed before I make the first release. As usual, names are the hardest part. Note especially that the operator ($~) is defined in *both* Data.Lazify and Data.Lazify.Generic, and that no operator corresponds to genericLazify. Hrmm mumble.
lazify (1, 2) = (1, 2) lazify undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) lazify undefined = Sum (_|_, _|_, _|_)
genericLazify (1,2) = (1,2) genericLazify undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) genericLazify (Sum (MyCon x y)) = ... oops, MyType isn't an instance of Lazifiable
lazifyGeneric (1,2) = (1,2) lazifyGeneric undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) lazifyGeneric (Sum (MyCon x y)) = Sum (MyCon x y)
Thanks in advance, David

On 2019-08-06 3:29 a.m., David Feuer wrote:
Of course, I forgot to actually link to the package candidate. Whoops! Here it is:
I think lazy would be a better function name than lazify. Generally speaking, verbs (i.e., actions) should bind to monadic functions. You put a lot of faith in GHC optimizations. I wouldn't rely on the default lazify = glazify implementation so much. Finally, some missing instances from base: - a -> b - NonEmpty - Complex - Alt - Par1 - Rec1

It's not faith; I checked the Core for the instances and found they all
optimized properly, and produced optimized unfoldings. Complex has a
totally strict constructor, which I think means it shouldn't have a
Lazifiable instance. Good point about NonEmpty and the extra newtypes. I've
thought about (a -> b), but it's not totally clear to me which instance is
best. For consistency, probably
lazify f x = f x
but is that really useful and clear?
I'd be okay with lazy rather than lazify, but that clashes with
GHC.Exts.lazy. How bad is that? How would you name the classes and package?
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 1:11 AM Mario Blažević
On 2019-08-06 3:29 a.m., David Feuer wrote:
Of course, I forgot to actually link to the package candidate. Whoops! Here it is:
I think lazy would be a better function name than lazify. Generally speaking, verbs (i.e., actions) should bind to monadic functions.
You put a lot of faith in GHC optimizations. I wouldn't rely on the default lazify = glazify implementation so much.
Finally, some missing instances from base:
- a -> b - NonEmpty - Complex - Alt - Par1 - Rec1

Maybe you can use inspection-testing https://hackage.haskell.org/package/inspection-testing to add test cases to ensure that these optimizations do not go away in the future.
On Aug 9, 2019, at 2:40 PM, David Feuer
wrote: It's not faith; I checked the Core for the instances and found they all optimized properly, and produced optimized unfoldings. Complex has a totally strict constructor, which I think means it shouldn't have a Lazifiable instance. Good point about NonEmpty and the extra newtypes. I've thought about (a -> b), but it's not totally clear to me which instance is best. For consistency, probably
lazify f x = f x
but is that really useful and clear?
I'd be okay with lazy rather than lazify, but that clashes with GHC.Exts.lazy. How bad is that? How would you name the classes and package?
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 1:11 AM Mario Blažević
mailto:mblazevic@stilo.com> wrote: On 2019-08-06 3:29 a.m., David Feuer wrote: Of course, I forgot to actually link to the package candidate. Whoops! Here it is:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lazify-0.1.0.0/candidate http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lazify-0.1.0.0/candidate
I think lazy would be a better function name than lazify. Generally speaking, verbs (i.e., actions) should bind to monadic functions.
You put a lot of faith in GHC optimizations. I wouldn't rely on the default lazify = glazify implementation so much.
Finally, some missing instances from base:
- a -> b - NonEmpty - Complex - Alt - Par1 - Rec1 _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Hi David,
What are the use cases for such a package?
I'd love to see some examples of problems that can be solved with
Lazifiable.
Chris
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, 19:25 David Feuer
I've put together a small package for lazifying record types. There's a "classy" version in Data.Lazify and a Generic-only version in Data.Lazify.Generic. A few examples are below. I'd love to hear comments on what looks good and what should be changed before I make the first release. As usual, names are the hardest part. Note especially that the operator ($~) is defined in *both* Data.Lazify and Data.Lazify.Generic, and that no operator corresponds to genericLazify. Hrmm mumble.
lazify (1, 2) = (1, 2) lazify undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) lazify undefined = Sum (_|_, _|_, _|_)
genericLazify (1,2) = (1,2) genericLazify undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) genericLazify (Sum (MyCon x y)) = ... oops, MyType isn't an instance of Lazifiable
lazifyGeneric (1,2) = (1,2) lazifyGeneric undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) lazifyGeneric (Sum (MyCon x y)) = Sum (MyCon x y)
Thanks in advance, David _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

A while back I complained to Ed Kmett that the `Bifunctor` instance for (,)
isn't strictly law abiding. Specifically,
bimap id id _|_ = (_|_, _|_)
while by the first law we should really have
bimap id id _|_ = _|_
He countered that for some purposes the extra laziness is necessary, and
that it's rather less convenient to lazify a pair than to force one (unless
you use something like forcePair[*] from utility-ht, which is another
one-trick pony to remember). This package is my attempt to prove to Ed that
lazifying is almost as easy as strictifying.
[*]
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/utility-ht-0.0.14/docs/Data-Tuple-Lazy.ht...
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, 3:55 AM Chris Wong
Hi David,
What are the use cases for such a package?
I'd love to see some examples of problems that can be solved with Lazifiable.
Chris
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, 19:25 David Feuer
wrote: I've put together a small package for lazifying record types. There's a "classy" version in Data.Lazify and a Generic-only version in Data.Lazify.Generic. A few examples are below. I'd love to hear comments on what looks good and what should be changed before I make the first release. As usual, names are the hardest part. Note especially that the operator ($~) is defined in *both* Data.Lazify and Data.Lazify.Generic, and that no operator corresponds to genericLazify. Hrmm mumble.
lazify (1, 2) = (1, 2) lazify undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) lazify undefined = Sum (_|_, _|_, _|_)
genericLazify (1,2) = (1,2) genericLazify undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) genericLazify (Sum (MyCon x y)) = ... oops, MyType isn't an instance of Lazifiable
lazifyGeneric (1,2) = (1,2) lazifyGeneric undefined = (_|_, _|_, _|_) lazifyGeneric (Sum (MyCon x y)) = Sum (MyCon x y)
Thanks in advance, David _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
participants (4)
-
Chris Wong
-
David Feuer
-
James Parker
-
Mario Blažević