On 17/12/2011, at 3:35 PM, Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote: > On 15/12/2011, Gregory Crosswhite <gcrosswh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 1) Documentation really needs to be improved >> 2) some/many cannot be physically separated from Alternative, but there >> *might* be an advantage to creating a subclass for them anyway purely for >> the sake of conveying more information about a type to users >> 3) Maybe and [] are sensible instances of Alternative, even if many/some >> often enters an infinite loop. >> 4) It is possible to provide special instance of many/some that satisfy the >> equations of many/some, with the slight disadvantage that these solutions >> are no longer the "least" solutions. >> >> Based on all of this, at this moment in time it seems to me that the most >> sensible way forward is to fix the documentation, tweak the definition of >> Alternative to no longer require the least solutions of the equations, and >> then to adopt the new instances for Maybe and []. >> >> Thoughts? > > (1) If we do (4), then the documentation ought to be adequate as-is.
No. Not by a country mile. It's better than "non-existent". It's better than "misleading". But it's not even on the same *continent* as "adequate". A lot of Haskell packages have pretty much the same level of documentation. And I didn't pay one single cent for it, so I can't scream too loudly. But let's not kid ourselves. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
