...

...

...

...

"BvD" == Bas van Dijk writes:

BvD> I'm still in favour of this so a +1 from me. +1 from me too. -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

For completeness, your proposal should also specify from which module this will be exported and what the fixity and precedence will be.

module Data.Functor, infixl 1, and should not be in prelude.

Those arguments seems to me as compelling today as they were 7 years ago, what has changed meanwhile?

The addition of (&) in base: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2013-October/021423.html -- Sid On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Andreas Abel wrote:

+1 from me. --Andreas

On 18.02.2017 12:01, John Wiegley wrote:

...

"BvD" == Bas van Dijk writes:

...

...

...

...

>

BvD> I'm still in favour of this so a +1 from me.

+1 from me too.

-- Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

andreas.abel@gu.se http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/

Could we instead have "ffor" which can be used prefix or infix and avoids the operator soup problem? On Feb 18, 2017 3:24 PM, "Edward Kmett" wrote:

I'm weakly +1 on this proposal. In my experience

foo <&> \x -> ...

works out as a nice idiom because it avoids having to parenthesize the lambda unlike the usual <$> convention.

For me, I can just make lens re-export the Data.Functor version on newer GHCs.

-Edward

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Siddhanathan Shanmugam < siddhanathan+eml@gmail.com> wrote:

...

...

For completeness, your proposal should also specify from which module this will be exported and what the fixity and precedence will be.

module Data.Functor, infixl 1, and should not be in prelude.

...

Those arguments seems to me as compelling today as they were 7 years ago, what has changed meanwhile?

The addition of (&) in base: https://mail.haskell.org /pipermail/libraries/2013-October/021423.html

-- Sid

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Andreas Abel wrote:

...

+1 from me. --Andreas

On 18.02.2017 12:01, John Wiegley wrote:

...

"BvD" == Bas van Dijk writes:

...

...

>>> >> BvD> I'm still in favour of this so a +1 from me.

+1 from me too.

-- Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

andreas.abel@gu.se http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/

_______________________________________________ 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

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel wrote:

I am using `for`

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda-2.5.2/docs/Agda-Uti ls-Functor.html

and I think taking `for` for Applicative was name theft.

This crime may no longer be charged under the statute of limitations. The federal code provides that no person can be tried or punished for any noncapital offense unless they are indicted or information is instituted within five years of the date the offense was committed. Of course, that is here within the U.S. You might have better luck in the international court of public opinion. =) -Edward

For the record, it makes no sense to me to have (<&>) *without* ffor. I am personally ambivalent about (<&>) in base, but I'd be -1 if it were not accompanied by ffor. On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Joe Hillenbrand wrote:

+1 Please, please, please can we have this?

...

Could we instead have "ffor" which can be used prefix or infix and avoids the operator soup problem?

-1

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Edward Kmett wrote:

...

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel wrote:

...

I am using `for`

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda-2.5.2/docs/Agda-

Utils-Functor.html

...

and I think taking `for` for Applicative was name theft.

This crime may no longer be charged under the statute of limitations. The federal code provides that no person can be tried or punished for any noncapital offense unless they are indicted or information is instituted within five years of the date the offense was committed.

Of course, that is here within the U.S. You might have better luck in the international court of public opinion. =)

-Edward

_______________________________________________ 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

FWIW, I'm less concerned about the precise name of ffor, although it seems sad to to lose the obvious correlation with fmap. On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:37 PM, David Feuer wrote:

I'm very much against the name ffor. Wouldn't forF be a better fit?

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Elliot Cameron wrote:

...

For the record, it makes no sense to me to have (<&>) without ffor. I am personally ambivalent about (<&>) in base, but I'd be -1 if it were not accompanied by ffor.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Joe Hillenbrand wrote:

...

+1 Please, please, please can we have this?

...

Could we instead have "ffor" which can be used prefix or infix and avoids the operator soup problem?

-1

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Edward Kmett wrote:

...

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel

wrote:

...

...

...

I am using `for`

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda-2.5.2/docs/Agda-

Utils-Functor.html

...

and I think taking `for` for Applicative was name theft.

This crime may no longer be charged under the statute of limitations. The federal code provides that no person can be tried or punished for any noncapital offense unless they are indicted or information is instituted within five years of the date the offense was committed.

Of course, that is here within the U.S. You might have better luck in the international court of public opinion. =)

-Edward

_______________________________________________ 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

Heh, I suppose that doesn't help my case much, does it? I "derived" the name for my own uses many times prior to seeing it elsewhere (most notably Reflex: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/reflex/docs/Reflex-Class.html#v:ffor). Like I said, the name "ffor" isn't wildly important IMO. I don't want to start the "fmap should be map" debate all over again either. On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:51 PM, John Wiegley wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

"EC" == Elliot Cameron writes:

EC> FWIW, I'm less concerned about the precise name of ffor, although it seems EC> sad to to lose the obvious correlation with fmap.

Ah, it wasn't until you said that that I understood why "ffor", but now it makes some sense. :)

-- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

Let's add <&> to Data.Functor then, as there is a reasonably clear consensus and it already sees fairly wide-spread use. I think we should leave ffor to another day and a separate explicit request / discussion, unless someone else on the CLC really wants to pipe up strongly in favor of adding it today. Adding the CLC to the distribution list to hammer out that detail. -Edward On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Siddhanathan Shanmugam < siddhanathan+eml@gmail.com> wrote:

There hasn't been any activity in this thread for two weeks. Summary of the discussion so far:

+4 in favor +1 weakly in favor -1 for not being accompanied by ffor

I'll let the committee take over.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Elliot Cameron wrote:

...

Heh, I suppose that doesn't help my case much, does it? I "derived" the name for my own uses many times prior to seeing it elsewhere (most notably Reflex: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/reflex/docs/ Reflex-Class.html#v:ffor). Like I said, the name "ffor" isn't wildly important IMO. I don't want to start the "fmap should be map" debate all over again either.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:51 PM, John Wiegley wrote:

...

...

...

...

>> "EC" == Elliot Cameron writes:

EC> FWIW, I'm less concerned about the precise name of ffor, although it seems EC> sad to to lose the obvious correlation with fmap.

Ah, it wasn't until you said that that I understood why "ffor", but now it makes some sense. :)

-- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

_______________________________________________ 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