Reconsider name of zipsWith'

[treeowl]

I was hoping someone would come up with a better name before that PR got merged.

[andrewthad]

Ideas:

• zipsLayerWith
• zipsLayer
• zipsFunctor

I'm not crazy about any of them though. Also, I just remembered that the haddocks for that function will need to be adjusted to put the MonadPlus laws in a code block.

[treeowl]

We'd best verify the rest of the laws.

…

On Sep 13, 2017 3:07 PM, "Andrew Martin" ***@***.***> wrote: Ideas: - zipsLayerWith - zipsLayer - zipsFunctor I'm not crazy about any of them though. Also, I just remembered that the haddocks for that function will need to be adjusted to put the MonadPlus laws in a code block. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#15 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABzi_XhxfO27YehWzDTxz6ijjdOp0qYfks5siCflgaJpZM4PWglL> .

[andrewthad]

As a look at it more, I realize that I don't understand what is meant by "satisfying the MonadPlus laws" in this context. After all, zipsWith' is just a function. Why does it need to satisfy any laws. Isn't the onus for that usually on the definitions of mzero and mplus, not on other functions?

[treeowl]

Look at the Alternative instance. But laws aside, the previous behavior seemed perverse.

…

On Sep 13, 2017 3:59 PM, "Andrew Martin" ***@***.***> wrote: As a look at it more, I realize that I don't understand what is meant by "satisfying the MonadPlus laws" in this context. After all, zipsWith' is just a function. Why does it need to satisfy any laws. Isn't the onus for that usually on the definitions of mzero and mplus, not on other functions? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#15 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABzi_XHRFi9y4Vzecex-A4y8-EeFHjeCks5siDQJgaJpZM4PWglL> .

[treeowl]

Actually, the rest of the laws seem fairly clearly okay, although proving that would require explicitly stating what our equivalence is. And I agree with @michaelt that the Alternative instance he came up with (with just the one correction) is the only one that makes any sense.

…

On Sep 13, 2017 3:19 PM, "David Feuer" ***@***.***> wrote: We'd best verify the rest of the laws. On Sep 13, 2017 3:07 PM, "Andrew Martin" ***@***.***> wrote: > Ideas: > > - zipsLayerWith > - zipsLayer > - zipsFunctor > > I'm not crazy about any of them though. Also, I just remembered that the > haddocks for that function will need to be adjusted to put the MonadPlus > laws in a code block. > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#15 (comment)>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABzi_XhxfO27YehWzDTxz6ijjdOp0qYfks5siCflgaJpZM4PWglL> > . >

[treeowl]

We should also reconsider the names of all the functions currently flagged Post. Or maybe even stick them all in a separate module. Let's try to do that pretty soon.