On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:25 AM, John Lato <jwl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com>wrote: > >> >> I think I just made a bad assumption about what you were proposing. If I >> was going to introduce a typeclass like this, I'd want it to support `Set`, >> since IME it's the most commonly used polymorphic `map` operation that has >> constraints. (Note that HashMap and Map are in fact Functors, since mapping >> only affects their values, which are unconstrained.) I don't really have >> any strong feelings on this topic, just that it would be nice to have * >> some* kind of a map-like function that worked on Set and HashSet. >> > > Ok, understood. I most often use this with Data.Vector.Unboxed and > Data.Vector.Storable, and that it would be useful for Set didn't really > occur to me. > > Given that, I agree that a non-Functor name is a workable choice. > >
OK, I've added both LooseMap, and storable vector instances: https://github.com/snoyberg/mono-traversable/commit/3f1c78eb12433a1e65d53b51a7fe1eb69ff80eec Does that look reasonable? Michael
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
