|David Luposchainsky||Mar 13, 2013 2:58 am|
|Henning Thielemann||Mar 13, 2013 3:21 am|
|Johan Tibell||Mar 13, 2013 8:39 am|
|David Luposchainsky||Mar 13, 2013 8:54 am|
|David Luposchainsky||Apr 3, 2013 1:11 am|
|Roman Cheplyaka||Apr 3, 2013 2:26 am|
|Herbert Valerio Riedel||Apr 3, 2013 3:31 am|
|Roman Cheplyaka||Apr 3, 2013 3:38 am|
|Herbert Valerio Riedel||Apr 3, 2013 3:46 am|
|Edward Kmett||Apr 3, 2013 6:46 am|
|David Luposchainsky||Apr 3, 2013 9:26 am|
|Evan Laforge||Apr 3, 2013 10:37 am|
|Edward Kmett||Apr 3, 2013 11:16 am|
|David Luposchainsky||Apr 4, 2013 8:06 am|
|Edward A Kmett||Apr 4, 2013 8:13 am|
|David Luposchainsky||Apr 6, 2013 9:36 am|
|Evan Laforge||Apr 6, 2013 9:51 am|
|Edward Kmett||Apr 6, 2013 7:26 pm|
|Subject:||Moving basic functions|
|From:||David Luposchainsky (dlup...@googlemail.com)|
|Date:||Mar 13, 2013 2:58:41 am|
Hello GHC HQ, hello mailing list,
there are a couple of basic functions that I think aren't where they should be.
1. void is currently in Control.Monad. However, it is defined only in terms of fmap (and therefore only has a Functor constraint). Although this function is often used in a monadic setting as ">> return ()", I really don't think Control.Monad is the right place for it.
2. a) swap is the only function from Data.Tuple that is not exported to Prelude. On #haskell, people are sometimes even surprised there /is/ a Data.Tuple, and redefine their own version of swap at need. I therefore suggest including Data.Tuple.swap in the Prelude.
The obvious downside of this change would of course be that it breaks code if there is a top-level user-defined version of it. Fixing this is of course trivial, but necessary.
b) A related suggestion would be the addition of an irrefutable swap, (swap'?), defined as "swap ~(a,b) = (b,a)", and its addition to Prelude for the same reasons.
3. $>, a flipped version of <$, currently resides in Control.Comonad, but should be in Data.Functor. Applicative has <* and *>, Monad has >>= and =<<, and I personally keep redefining (or specifically importing) $> quite often, and I don't think I'm the only one.
As these are quite small changes I think 2 weeks should be a sufficiently long discussion period.