Asad Saeeduddin

Would some generative tests to ensure (probable) conformity with the laws help this along?

I played around with this a little bit more today, and while unfortunately I didn't manage to find the proof of correctness we're looking for, I did manage to relate...

@Gadgetoid Hi there. Kinda tangential to my actual question, but I've experienced unreliable behavior in a clean setup where all three requirements are met (I sent a support ticket last...

> For `btraverse1`, would one need a new class? E.g., can't one derive it from `btraverse` and an auxiliary newtype wrapper that pretends an `Apply` is actually an `Applicative`, or...

@jcpetruzza The main issue as I understand it is that the quality of "not using `pure`" isn't attached to `f`, but to `b`. In a context where you're abstract in...

@jcpetruzza Yes, exactly. This is why you would want `Traversable1B` to be a subclass of `TraversableB`. > If `Apply` were a super-class of `Applicative`, we'd just require `Apply` for the...

@fumieval FWIW i've revised my position on the "bag of lenses" class. I now believe that what we want is the class of HKDs that are products. A naive encoding...

Not only are the `Functor(B|F)` classes duplicated, we also have duplication between `Functor(T|FC)`. For the latter, there's heavy duplication with https://hackage.haskell.org/package/sop-core-0.5.0.1/docs/Data-SOP-Classes.html as well.

@jcpetruzza @langston-barrett I'd be super interested in working on factoring out a common core here, but as @jcpetruzza mentioned, a high level plan for something that would work in both...

@jcpetruzza Might it have been the `TraversableB` typeclass? `Traversable` [has issues](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68720357/is-it-possible-to-derive-a-traversable-instance-via-another-type-constructor) being derived via a newtype, and I would anticipate so does `TraversableB`. That said, if you're ok with tweaking...