Daniel Peebles | 29 Oct 22:11 2010
Picon

Applicative instance for ST

Hi all,


Strangely enough, ST has a Functor and a Monad instance, but no Applicative instance (I guess it was pre-Applicative). I propose to add one. It doesn't seem very controversial, but I guess a normal discussion period for these proposals is two weeks? 

Thanks,
Dan
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Edward Z. Yang | 30 Oct 00:06 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

+1

Edward
Bas van Dijk | 30 Oct 00:35 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Peebles <pumpkingod <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Strangely enough, ST has a Functor and a Monad instance, but no Applicative
> instance (I guess it was pre-Applicative). I propose to add one. It doesn't
> seem very controversial, but I guess a normal discussion period for these
> proposals is two weeks?

+1

Don't forget to make a ticket so this is nor forgotten:

http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/newticket?type=proposal&component=libraries/base&milestone=Not+GHC

Bas
Daniel Peebles | 30 Oct 00:43 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

Tada! http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4455


Thanks for the patch :)

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Peebles <pumpkingod <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Strangely enough, ST has a Functor and a Monad instance, but no Applicative
> instance (I guess it was pre-Applicative). I propose to add one. It doesn't
> seem very controversial, but I guess a normal discussion period for these
> proposals is two weeks?

+1

Don't forget to make a ticket so this is nor forgotten:

http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/newticket?type=proposal&component=libraries/base&milestone=Not+GHC

Bas

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Nicolas Pouillard | 30 Oct 00:41 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:11:07 -0400, Daniel Peebles <pumpkingod <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Strangely enough, ST has a Functor and a Monad instance, but no Applicative
> instance (I guess it was pre-Applicative). I propose to add one. It doesn't
> seem very controversial, but I guess a normal discussion period for these
> proposals is two weeks?

+1

--

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard
http://nicolaspouillard.fr
Ross Paterson | 30 Oct 01:05 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 04:11:07PM -0400, Daniel Peebles wrote:
> Strangely enough, ST has a Functor and a Monad instance, but no Applicative
> instance (I guess it was pre-Applicative). I propose to add one. It doesn't
> seem very controversial, but I guess a normal discussion period for these
> proposals is two weeks? 

Indeed everything with a Monad instance should have a matching Applicative
instance.  You'll need one for Control.Monad.ST.Lazy(ST) too.
Bas van Dijk | 30 Oct 01:31 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Ross Paterson <ross <at> soi.city.ac.uk> wrote:
> You'll need one for Control.Monad.ST.Lazy(ST) too.

Attached is the amended patch with the addition of Lazy.ST.
Attachment (add_instance_Applicative_ST.dpatch): application/octet-stream, 72 KiB
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Daniel Fischer | 30 Oct 11:13 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

On Friday 29 October 2010 22:11:07, Daniel Peebles wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Strangely enough, ST has a Functor and a Monad instance, but no
> Applicative instance (I guess it was pre-Applicative). I propose to add
> one. It doesn't seem very controversial, but I guess a normal discussion
> period for these proposals is two weeks?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan

+ 1
Bas van Dijk | 28 Dec 14:41 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Peebles <pumpkingod <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Strangely enough, ST has a Functor and a Monad instance, but no Applicative
> instance (I guess it was pre-Applicative). I propose to add one. It doesn't
> seem very controversial, but I guess a normal discussion period for these
> proposals is two weeks?
> Thanks,
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>

Daniel, I believe you can move your ticket to the patch state since no
objections we're raised for adding an Applicative instance for ST:

http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4455

Regards,

Bas
Daniel Peebles | 28 Dec 16:54 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

Done, thanks! Who looks at it now?

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Peebles <pumpkingod <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Strangely enough, ST has a Functor and a Monad instance, but no Applicative
> instance (I guess it was pre-Applicative). I propose to add one. It doesn't
> seem very controversial, but I guess a normal discussion period for these
> proposals is two weeks?
> Thanks,
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>

Daniel, I believe you can move your ticket to the patch state since no
objections we're raised for adding an Applicative instance for ST:
Regards,

Bas

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Bas van Dijk | 29 Dec 16:38 2010
Picon

Re: Applicative instance for ST

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Daniel Peebles <pumpkingod <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Done, thanks! Who looks at it now?

In my experience it's usually either Simon Marlow or Ian Lynagh.

Bas

Gmane