Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Add Alternative a.k.a ApplicativePlus as distinct from implicit Monoid and Applicative together
See original GitHub issueAn Applicative with a Monoid instance gives rise to Alternative (Haskell) or ApplicativePlus (Scala) that is usually distinct from the Monoid formed from the semigroup of the augmented type. I was wondering if there should be an additional definition for a class like Alternative with a method name such as choice or or that is specifically an Applicative with a Monoid for the higher kind itself rather than proxying to the Semigroup instance.
In particular, I would love defined semantics for things like:
Option.None.or(Option.Some(1)) == Option.Some(1)
be defined rather than
Option.Some(1).concat(Option.Some(1))
complaining about no concat on a field.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 8 years ago
- Comments:8 (4 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
#187 seems to cover what I was initially looking for when I opened this.
There was a decent amount of discussion in ps-land about the laws: https://github.com/purescript/purescript-control/issues/6 In particular, this comment: https://github.com/purescript/purescript-control/issues/6#issuecomment-44097271
Also here, https://github.com/plaid/sanctuary/pull/11#discussion_r25558476