This is totally trivial, but I was studying how far one could conveniently swap lens-family for lens and vice versa, and noticed that the names here differ from those exported by Control.Lens. (The overlap is mkLenses/makeLenses and mkLensesFor/makeLensesFor.) lens-family seems to be attempting "to be mostly compatible with the lexicon from lens" as roconnor says in http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-family-1.0.0/changelog
Apart from mkLenses/makeLenses, the only other difficulty I had compiling the Pong example using lens-family and lens-family-th was with Control.Lens.<~ (where x <~ y is the same as s <- y; x .= s ). https://github.com/michaelt/lens-simple/blob/master/examples/Pong.hs I should be proposing a patch, but wondered what you thought.
This is totally trivial, but I was studying how far one could conveniently swap
lens-family
forlens
and vice versa, and noticed that the names here differ from those exported byControl.Lens
. (The overlap ismkLenses/makeLenses
andmkLensesFor/makeLensesFor
.)lens-family
seems to be attempting "to be mostly compatible with the lexicon from lens" as roconnor says in http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens-family-1.0.0/changelogApart from
mkLenses/makeLenses
, the only other difficulty I had compiling the Pong example usinglens-family
andlens-family-th
was withControl.Lens.<~
(wherex <~ y
is the same ass <- y; x .= s
). https://github.com/michaelt/lens-simple/blob/master/examples/Pong.hs I should be proposing a patch, but wondered what you thought.