You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We currently have foldMapA and foldMapM methods with identical semantics (apart from the constraint), because the monadic implementation using tailRecMcan be much faster than the implementation that can only use Applicative.
We've recently added a reduceMapA with a similarly loosened constraint (see #3141, #3150, and #3199). Right now reduceMapM and reduceMapA have identical implementations. It's probably the case that reduceMapM could be implemented more efficiently using tailRecM, and we should either do this or deprecate it, because otherwise there's no reason for it to exist and it's just confusing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We currently have
foldMapA
andfoldMapM
methods with identical semantics (apart from the constraint), because the monadic implementation usingtailRecM
can be much faster than the implementation that can only useApplicative
.We've recently added a
reduceMapA
with a similarly loosened constraint (see #3141, #3150, and #3199). Right nowreduceMapM
andreduceMapA
have identical implementations. It's probably the case thatreduceMapM
could be implemented more efficiently usingtailRecM
, and we should either do this or deprecate it, because otherwise there's no reason for it to exist and it's just confusing.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: