Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should the docs mention instances for base? #98

Open
andreasabel opened this issue Jul 6, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Should the docs mention instances for base? #98

andreasabel opened this issue Jul 6, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@andreasabel
Copy link

I was searching for an instance of Arbitrary (Data.List.NonEmpty.NonEmpty _), i.e., a type defined in base, and looked up the docs for this package.

This package provides instances for the classes in the QuickCheck Haskell library.
QuickCheck itself doesn't ship with instances for types outsde of the `base` package, however there are a lot more types which are commonly used within Haskell libraries and programs.
We aim to provide instances for the types which ship with the Haskell Platform, however we only add them as the maintainer needs them or as patches are received, so we may lag behind the platform itself.

Instances are provided for the types in the packages:
* array
* bytestring
* case-insensitive

It does not say (yet) that it provides instance for base.
This might be documentation bit-rot, since originally non-empty lists were not part of base.

I think README and docs should be updated to reflect the current situation.

Maybe also this sentence:

Patches are always welcome!

See also:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant