Closed treeowl closed 7 years ago
Seems reasonable. Can you put that disclaimer ("only good definitions of dimap
, etc., for instances defining an explicit wander
") in the Haddocks for each functions? Thanks!
Done.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Ryan Scott notifications@github.com wrote:
Seems reasonable. Can you put that disclaimer ("only good definitions of dimap, etc., for instances defining an explicit wander") in the Haddocks for each functions? Thanks!
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ekmett/profunctors/pull/52#issuecomment-314159896, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABzi_XuaJG1H1wE1yMEyOBGMNyPWC1aRks5sMlEvgaJpZM4M_sFg .
Since the new
dimapTraversing
, etc., are only good definitions ofdimap
, etc., for instances defining an explicitwander
, the names should reflect that, asdimapWandering
,lmapWandering
, andrmapWandering
.