-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Reducible for Eval and Id #1475
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should this be combined with the monad/comonad above?
I don't think we can ever implement
Traverse[Eval]
(I'd love to be wrong about that), so it didn't have the same ambiguous implicit concern thatId
has (sinceTraverse[Id]
also extendsFoldable[Id]
, we don't wantReducible[Id]
we have to either use priority, or unify them in the same instance).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Couldn't a fairly trivial
Traverse[Eval]
be implemented wheretraverse
looks something like this?It's a bit wonky, but the
Comonad
,Reducible
, etc instances are already based on eager calls to.value
, so I don't know if it's any different.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It occurs to me that such a
Traverse
instance can be defined for any comonad, so it it's probably a known thing with some known properties to people who know more than I do :)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It also occurs to me that a big difference between this
Traverse
instance and the instances that you've added is that yours shouldn't ever lead to stack overflows while this one is probably pretty likely to bite people with them.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
none of our instances call
.value
unless the return type requires it. It seems to me we should keep that since otherwise you lose the stack safety if Eval, so that is what I really meant. If you are willing to call.value
,Eval
is isomorphic toId
I think, but the best practice ofEval
(though perhaps not required, but the real rule might somewhat complex and difficult to verify) is to only call.value
once at the end.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that limiting ourselves to instances that (if they need to call
.value
at all) only call.value
once at the end is probably a good general rule. 👍There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm sorry for all of the thinking out loud here, but I just realized that the
traverse
implementation above only calls.value
once, just as theReducible
instances do. Is there a reason that we would consider this to be different? Maybe because theEval
in the return type suggests that we aren't calling.value
?