Am 20.09.2011 20:21, schrieb Edward Kmett:
[...]
I would suggest you rephrase this as a formal proposal, then I can
happily vote +1.
Seeing the "wonderful" interrelation between elem, nub, nubBy and i.e.
unionBy eq xs ys = xs ++ foldl (flip (deleteBy eq)) (nubBy eq ys) xs
intersectBy eq xs ys = [x | x <- xs, any (eq x) ys]
(note that "any (eq x)" could be "elemBy eq")
I see hardly a chance to make a sensible proposal.
I think, it is wrong to change the implementation of "elem" and
"notElem" since I expect the "key" to be the first argument of the
eq-comparison (in contrast to the REPORT_PRELUDE!).
But this all would not matter if the eq-function are always symmetric,
which may be not the case in practise. So a change could break existing
code.
I'd also suggest rephrasing rhe mapAccumR as a formal proposal. I'm not
sure yet of whether or not I'd be behind that one, but make both
proposals separately, so they can pass individually.
I also don't see a relation to mapAccumR, so why don't you make such a
separate proposal?
C.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
