Getting rid of `Data.Monoid.DecidablyEmpty`
endgame opened this issue · 6 comments
There's a comment at the top of Data.Monoid.DecidablyEmpty
which reads: -- TODO upstream somwhere else?
That "somewhere else" already exists: Data.Monoid.Null
from monoid-subclasses
.
I had a look at the instances it provides, and it is missing the following ones:
instance MonoidNull a => MonoidNull (Identity a)
instance MonoidNull a => MonoidNull (WrappedMonoid a)
instance (Ord a, Bounded a) => MonoidNull (Max a)
instance (Ord a, Bounded a) => MonoidNull (Min a)
instance MonoidNull (Proxy a)
instance MonoidNull a => MonoidNull (Const a b)
instance MonoidNull a => MonoidNull (Down a)
instance MonoidNull p => MonoidNull (Par 1 p)
instance MonoidNull (U1 p)
instance MonoidNull (f p) => MonoidNull (Rec1 f p)
instance MonoidNull (f p) => MonoidNull (M1 i c f p)
instance MonoidNull c => MonoidNull (K1 i c p)
instance (MonoidNull (f p), MonoidNull (g p)) => MonoidNull ((f :*: g) p)
instance (MonoidNull (f p), MonoidNull (g p)) => MonoidNull ((f :.: g) p)
instance (...) => MonoidNull (a, b, c, d, e)
-- Should go to dependent-map
instance GCompare k => MonoidNull (DMap k v)
This would solve #42 but is too much work to hold up GHC 9.2 support. Tasks, as I see them:
- Add the missing instances to
monoid-subclasses
and release - Add the missing instance to
dependent-map
and release - Replace
Data.Monoid.DecidablyEmpty.DecidablyEmpty
with type alias, setisEmpty = Data.Monoid.Null.null
, deprecate both, and release - Remove deprecated
Data.Monoid.DecidablyEmpty
.
None of this seems particularly controversial. We might want monoid-subclasses
anyway because of #37. It's quite a light package, so depending on it from dependent-map
shouldn't be a problem either.
@Ericson2314 Let me know if you're happy with this plan, and I will begin making PRs.
@endgame this one I have more mixed feelings about because monoid-subclasses
is such overkill for our use-case.
Also, if we we had more "non-empty" data types, like haskell/containers#616, we could do this in a more "type directed" way which would be more satisfying.
(If you have spare cycles, I think they would be more usefully spent getting haskell/containers#616 over the finish line. I hope the conflicts are not too bad! The only thing remaining before that I remember was dealing with some perf regressions, which I think is just a matter of tweaking the inlining.)
@endgame this one I have more mixed feelings about because
monoid-subclasses
is such overkill for our use-case.
It's not that big a package, and its library component has a pretty reasonable dependency footprint. Regardless, I opened blamario/monoid-subclasses#50 .
@endgame This is awesome, thank you!
Since I got the github notification, I thought I'd do dependent-map
while I had a couple of minutes.