Miles Frain

I'm thinking we should table all these container (`List`, `Array`, etc.) updates for 0.15. I think it would be more efficient to do a systematic update of all our container...

> how is `union` different from ``? `union` does a set-like union of the two arrays. `` is the same as `append`/``. `union` keeps any duplicates that already exist in...

> The main reason I don't really want to just deprecate these functions and tell people to just use sets instead is that arrays have ordering, whereas sets don't, which...

Better if we assume these requirements: - maintain ordering - not having any weirdness with set-like operations Of course, there can be other requirements, but I didn't see anything else...

> union is If that is the case, then I don't think we should offer `union` at all. But there is another option for `union` that builds on your matching...

> As for ordered set are you talking about this? https://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescript-ordered-set/0.4.0 Oh, nice! Didn't find that on my initial survey.

We can start with a `Foldable1` `intersections`, but I suspect there will be requests for a version that allows an empty list of sets (and returns a more pragmatic empty...

> I don’t see it as too much of a problem if people do end up writing `my_intersections` functions downstream That sounds good for now. Can always add it to...

Found this really nice table for F# https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/fsharp-collection-types#table-of-functions I think we should strive to build the same for PureScript. --- Noticed that [`Cons`](https://fsharp.github.io/fsharp-core-docs/reference/fsharp-collections-fsharplist-1.html#Cons) is missing from that table though. So...

My understanding of the current best way to get `map3` behavior is to take a detour though nested tuples and create a custom `zip3` along the way. Lots of hoops...