Hi all
Sorry I've been slow replying: I'm not around much at the moment.
Thanks for all the responses. I did think, when I started playing with
what I call eta and <$>, that I couldn't possibly be alone.
Would it be good if we sought some more standardized presentation of
this structure? In terms of
*** 1 what to call the class and its methods: I have no particular
attachment to any of the names I've used (also for stuff below)
*** 2 what other bits and pieces we'd like to have also; in the Epigram
source, I currently have the more general n-ary lifting operator fun,
defined thus (again, I'm not attached to the names)
> class Fun f => Funnel f s t | f s -> t, s t -> f, f t -> s where
> fun :: s -> t
> funnel :: f s -> t
> instance Funnel f t u => Funnel f (s -> t) (f s -> u) where
> fun g = funnel (eta g)
> funnel fg fx = funnel (fg <$> fx)
(defun base-funnel (data) (insert (concat "\n\n"
"> instance Fun f => Funnel f " data " (f " data") where\n"
"> fun = eta\n"
"> funnel = id\n"
)))
and then a Funnel instance for each base type, but I'd rather have
> instance Fun f => Funnel f data (f data) where
> fun = eta
> funnel = id
I believe it's that overlapping instances vs fundep problem...
Also `ExtractableFunctor'...
> infixl 9 <^>
> class Functorial g where
> (<^>) :: Fun f => (s -> f t) -> g s -> f (g t)
...and flattening...
> infixr 5 <+>
> class Monoidal x where
> m0 :: x
> (<+>) :: x -> x -> x
> newtype K s t = K {unK :: s} deriving (Show,Eq)
> instance Monoidal s => Fun (K s) where
> eta _ = K m0
> K x <$> K y = K (x <+> y)
> infixl 9 <!>
> (<!>) :: (Functorial g,Monoidal s) => (x -> s) -> g x -> s
> f <!> gx = unK ((K . f) <^> gx)
*** 3 what extra syntax might be nice for work in this style, the way
do-notation supports monads; one interesting question is how much
of the lifting can be inferred silently, within the scope of a
general hint that we're `working under f'
I'm certainly interested in giving a serviceable presentation to this
style of working: I use it all the time. Is it worth trying to get
some sort of consensus?
Cheers
Conor
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
