Quantcast

Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Siddhanathan Shanmugam
This was proposed about 7 years ago, and rejected at the time: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3962

 Is it okay if I revive this argument now?

I think it would be useful to have the lens operator <&> in base, which is defined as:

(<&>) :: Functor f => f a -> (a -> b) -> f b
as <&> f = f <$> as

This is analogous to a lifted version of (&) that already present in Data.Function


Cheers,
Sid

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Bas van Dijk-2
I'm still in favour of this so a +1 from me.

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

Bas


Op 18 feb. 2017 05:41 schreef "Siddhanathan Shanmugam" <[hidden email]>:
This was proposed about 7 years ago, and rejected at the time: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3962

 Is it okay if I revive this argument now?

I think it would be useful to have the lens operator <&> in base, which is defined as:

(<&>) :: Functor f => f a -> (a -> b) -> f b
as <&> f = f <$> as

This is analogous to a lifted version of (&) that already present in Data.Function


Cheers,
Sid

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Francesco Ariis
In reply to this post by Siddhanathan Shanmugam
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 08:40:00PM -0800, Siddhanathan Shanmugam wrote:
> This was proposed about 7 years ago, and rejected at the time:
> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3962

From that ticket

> I'm not in favor of this proposal. Naming trivial compositions puts
> a complexity tax on all users of the library and we end up with 2*n
> operators instead of n operators and one flip function. It's trivial
> to define the function locally or in a helper module.
>
> To elaborate: At work some of our core APIs have gotten dramatically
> more complex due to their maintainers allowing people, in interest to
> keep their own code cleaner, to add small helper functions to those
> APIs. This is now recognized as bad practice and discouraged with a
> call to "not fear the semicolon"! (We use mostly imperative languages
> at work.)

(by Johan Tibell)

Those arguments seems to me as compelling today as they were 7 years
ago, what has changed meanwhile?
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

John Wiegley-2
In reply to this post by Bas van Dijk-2
>>>>> "BvD" == Bas van Dijk <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Andreas Abel-2
+1 from me.  --Andreas

On 18.02.2017 12:01, John Wiegley wrote:
>>>>>> "BvD" == Bas van Dijk <[hidden email]> 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

[hidden email]
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Siddhanathan Shanmugam
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?


-- Sid


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 from me.  --Andreas

On 18.02.2017 12:01, John Wiegley wrote:
"BvD" == Bas van Dijk <[hidden email]> 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

[hidden email]
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Edward Kmett-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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?


-- Sid


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 from me.  --Andreas

On 18.02.2017 12:01, John Wiegley wrote:
"BvD" == Bas van Dijk <[hidden email]> 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

[hidden email]
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Elliot Cameron-2
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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?


-- Sid


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 from me.  --Andreas

On 18.02.2017 12:01, John Wiegley wrote:
"BvD" == Bas van Dijk <[hidden email]> 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

[hidden email]
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Andreas Abel-2
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.

On 19.02.2017 23:52, Elliot Cameron wrote:

> 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" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>         <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2013-October/021423.html>
>
>
>         -- Sid
>
>
>         On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>             +1 from me.  --Andreas
>
>             On 18.02.2017 12:01, John Wiegley wrote:
>
>                                     "BvD" == Bas van Dijk
>                                     <[hidden email]
>                                     <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>
>             [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/
>             <http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Libraries mailing list
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>         <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Libraries mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>     <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries>
>

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

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

[hidden email]
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Edward Kmett-2
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Joe Hillenbrand
+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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Elliot Cameron-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

David Feuer
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> 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
>> > [hidden email]
>> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Elliot Cameron-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> 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
>> > [hidden email]
>> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

John Wiegley-2
>>>>> "EC" == Elliot Cameron <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Elliot Cameron-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> "EC" == Elliot Cameron <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Siddhanathan Shanmugam
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> "EC" == Elliot Cameron <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Edward Kmett-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> "EC" == Elliot Cameron <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal: flipped fmap in base (again)

Ryan Scott
In reply to this post by Siddhanathan Shanmugam
+1 from me as well on including (<&>) in base. I wouldn't object to adding ffor either, if folks with find that useful.

Ryan S.

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Loading...