On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
> I wrote:
Could you please add a Semigroup instance for Text?
>
> Edward Kmett wrote:
>> Unfortunately, I don't think I can really bring myself to do either.
>> I was deliberately trying to keep the number of dependencies for the
>> semigr
Getting stuff into the HP is a different problem, and something I'm
working on addressing in coming weeks... stay tuned.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>>
>> You are quite right. These should really be defined in the
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
> You are quite right. These should really be defined in their
> respective packages. I don't think it's too onerous for them
> to add a dependency on semigroups, even before you
> reverse the few lightweight dependencies that semigroups has.
I wrote:
>>> Could you please add a Semigroup instance for Text?
Edward Kmett wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't think I can really bring myself to do either.
> I was deliberately trying to keep the number of dependencies for the
> semigroups as low as possible...
You are quite right. These should r
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>
>>
>> Could you please add a Semigroup instance for Text?
>>
>
>
I'd strongly recommend writing an instance for the text package's Builder
> type instead. Vastly more efficient for no
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>
> Could you please add a Semigroup instance for Text?
>
I'd strongly recommend writing an instance for the text package's Builder
type instead. Vastly more efficient for non-trivial jobs.
> Once you're doing that, I suppose you'd also want
Hi Edward,
Could you please add a Semigroup instance for Text?
Once you're doing that, I suppose you'd also want to
add it for lazy Text and both kinds of ByteStrings.
But what I currently need is strict Text.
The reason, of course, is that in complex calculations <>
is *so* much more readable t