Include a class for `hoist`? about purescript-control HOT 10 CLOSED

hoise is in fact map for a higher-order Functor, where the objects are transformers and the arrows are natural transformations. 😄

from purescript-control.

Yes, MFunctor should be a functor in the category of monads (takes monads to monads, monad morphisms to monad morphisms, plus appropriate laws). So maybe this should be called FFunctor or FunctorFunctor 😛

from purescript-control.

Isn't the 1 enough? 😉 That's our usual approach for higher order classes.

from purescript-control.

I think Functor1 could possibly mean a few different things. Either forall a. Functor (f a), or something from plain type constructors to type constructors, etc. There is also stuff like ProfunctorFunctor etc., so we'll eventually want names where we can differentiate these things.

from purescript-control.

Ah yeah, that makes sense. What about FunctorF rather than FFunctor then? Since I assume it'd be ProfunctorF in that scheme also?

FunctorFunctor just seems too silly, even though it's entirely accurate 😆

from purescript-control.

It's sort of a shame that we can't write these classes once. I think we'd need at least polykinds and constraint kinds to do that.

I'm fine with any name that addresses the concern above.

from purescript-control.

I know! I've made attempts and doing them the right way in Haskell without much luck either, so either I was taking the wrong approach, or you need some really fancy type magic to make it work.

from purescript-control.

I wrote some thoughts along these lines a while ago here actually.

from purescript-control.

I think purescript-mmorph and purescript-hoist are the way to go here. Close?

from purescript-control.

👍

from purescript-control.