On Dec 17, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> (1) If we do (4), then the documentation ought to be adequate as-is.
I see your point that if we do (4) then some and many are no longer problematic
for Maybe and [], and thus we don't need warnings for those types. However,
nonetheless we will *still* need *big warnings* *for the sake of others who
write Alternative instances* for new types to make sure that these instances do
not fall into the same trap as Maybe and []. That is, we want to let future
authors of instances know about the conditions under which they will need to
write their own versions of some and maybe in order to make sure that these
methods have sensible behavior.
In addition to this, we also really need some additional documentation
explaining what the point of some and many are, since few people have any clue
about them. :-)
Finally, if we adopt (4) then we will need to change the documentation to
remove "least" from "least solutions of the equations" since the phrase will no
longer be correct. Better still, we could replace the phrase entirely with
something like "least *converging* solutions of the equations". (*)
Cheers,
Greg
(*) P.S:
Dear people who are better at this kind of technical language than I:
I am fully aware of the fact that the phrase "least converging solutions of the
equations [...]" is sloppy wording at best and absolutely wrong at worst, but
hopefully you should at least understand what I am *trying* to get at. Thus, I
would welcome either your feedback on what it is that I am supposed to be
thinking and saying, or an explanation about why the idea I am trying to
conceive and convey is so intrinsically poorly formed that I am best off just
giving up on it. ;-)
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
