{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/classy-prelude/issues/111","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/classy-prelude/issues/111/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/classy-prelude/issues/111/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/classy-prelude/issues/111/events","html_url":"https://github.com/snoyberg/classy-prelude/issues/111","id":128317495,"number":111,"title":"Strange type rigidity in unlines and unwords","user":{"login":"kozross","id":8463904,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8463904?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross","html_url":"https://github.com/kozross","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kozross/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":6,"created_at":"2016-01-23T09:34:06Z","updated_at":"2016-01-25T11:18:24Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I don't know if this should be in mono-traversable or not, but I figured I should report it. The type of ```unlines``` is reported by GHCi as:\r\n\r\n```unlines :: Textual t => [t] -> t```\r\n\r\nIs there a reason for such rigidity in the collection type? Near as I can tell, ```unlines``` is a special fold, and thus, surely anything ```Foldable``` should be game for it? The same goes for ```unwords``` - this is also basically a special fold, and thus, surely anything ```Foldable``` should be game?\r\n\r\nI am very new to Haskell, and don't always understand the motivations behind certain choices, so I could be completely wrong, but this type rigidity strikes me as strange, given the focus on typeclass-level behaviour of classy-prelude."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/classy-prelude/issues/comments/174476337","html_url":"https://github.com/snoyberg/classy-prelude/issues/111#issuecomment-174476337","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/classy-prelude/issues/111","id":174476337,"user":{"login":"snoyberg","id":49415,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/49415?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg","html_url":"https://github.com/snoyberg","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/snoyberg/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-01-25T11:18:24Z","updated_at":"2016-01-25T11:18:24Z","body":"I'm not ruling anything out, I'm simply pointing out that there's a cost to\nthis change, making it less-than-obvious that we'll do it. This hesitance\napplies whether or not we're already breaking the API. However, given the\nunlikeliness of people defining their own Textual instances, I'd be OK with\nmerging a PR for this change to mono-traversable when we make our next\nmajor release.\n\nOn Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Koz Ross <notifications@github.com> wrote:\n\n> Well, could it be incorporated into a *future* breaking change for\n> something less trivial? Given that neither classy-prelude nor\n> mono-traversable are at 1.0 yet, such a change could potentially happen -\n> would you still be opposed in such a case?\n>\n> —\n> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub\n> <https://github.com/snoyberg/classy-prelude/issues/111#issuecomment-174473062>\n> .\n>\n"}}