Skip to content
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

mkFold vs foldVL #179

Closed
arybczak opened this issue Jun 1, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #183
Closed

mkFold vs foldVL #179

arybczak opened this issue Jun 1, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #183

Comments

@arybczak
Copy link
Collaborator

arybczak commented Jun 1, 2019

Split from #165.

mkFold used to be called foldVL, but I changed it as it takes something more general than VL fold since f doesn't need to be Contravariant.

But it occurs to me now that we can't have proper foldVL because we use wander for folds internally and it doesn't know about Contravariant.

Shall we rename it back? I'd be inclined to do so. @adamgundry what do you think?

@adamgundry
Copy link
Member

As a point of comparison, we have atraversalVL and toAtraversalVL for AffineTraversal, even though our definition of AffineTraversalVL is slightly wrong as it takes the "Pointed dictionary" as an explicit argument. So there's precedent for deviating slightly here. As long as we document the infelicity I'd be happy with foldVL.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants