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

Re-export hoistMaybe from transformers #253

Open
dcastro opened this issue Mar 31, 2022 · 4 comments
Open

Re-export hoistMaybe from transformers #253

dcastro opened this issue Mar 31, 2022 · 4 comments
Labels
type:fix Code is modified, but without breaking changes or new definitions. Not necessary a bug fix.
Milestone

Comments

@dcastro
Copy link
Member

dcastro commented Mar 31, 2022

At the moment, we're defining hoistMaybe in Universum.Monad.Trans.

However, transformers also introduced a hoistMaybe function in 0.6.0.0. We should just re-export it.

We shouldn't do this now though. Even recent LTSs are still using older versions of transformers. LTS 18.28 uses transformers-0.5.6.2. Let's do this when transformers >= 0.6.0.0 gains widespread adoption.

@dcastro dcastro added the type:fix Code is modified, but without breaking changes or new definitions. Not necessary a bug fix. label Mar 31, 2022
@treeowl
Copy link

treeowl commented Mar 31, 2022

Why not use a bit of CPP?

@dcastro
Copy link
Member Author

dcastro commented Mar 31, 2022

Why not use a bit of CPP?

Hmm I guess using CPP to either re-export hoistMaybe or define it from scratch would help avoid issues when a user has both Control.Monad.Trans.Maybe.hoistMaybe and Universum.hoistMaybe in scope at the same time.

Yup, we could do that in the interim, and then delete it and re-export transformer's when it gains widespread adoption, good idea!

@treeowl
Copy link

treeowl commented Mar 31, 2022

Cool. Do you know of any tools that try to point out (or even remove) MIN_VERSION macros that Cabal bounds make redundant? I probably wouldn't want negated invocations removed.

@dcastro
Copy link
Member Author

dcastro commented Mar 31, 2022

I'm not aware of any, no :/

@dcastro dcastro added this to the v.1.9.0 milestone Sep 10, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type:fix Code is modified, but without breaking changes or new definitions. Not necessary a bug fix.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants