Andrey Mokhov

@nobrakal Ah, I see, thanks for clarifying... Yes, that's what one gets for having O(n) complexity :) There is really a huge swing between best and worst cases.

Since we are now starting to look more carefully at non-empty graphs, I think it may be worth adding them into the regression suite... Perhaps, into a separate Travis instance,...

I just realised that `NonEmpty.Graph (Maybe a)` is isomorphic to `Graph a`: * `NonEmpty.Vertex (Just a) ~ Vertex a` * `NonEmpty.Vertex Nothing ~ Empty` Not sure this observartion is useful,...

@michaelpj It's not technically difficult to add a higher-kinded version of `ToGraph`, but it feels wrong to maintain both versions. The same can be said about `Class` and `HigherKinded.Class`: I...

I've published a (rather long) blog post about one more type class that we might want to consider when working with algebraic graphs: https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/andreymokhov/united-monoids/ The type class `United` is not...

What I meant to say is: perhaps we can switch to a graph type class that is not parameterised by the type of vertex, something like `class United m =>...

I'm not a big fan of `ToGraph` either and I'd be happy to trim it down, so let me list all current methods and give some rational for why they...

I have a feeling that splitting off `ToGraph` and `GraphOps` might bring even more confusion... Let's keep this issue open, perhaps we'll figure out a better approach some day. >...

> So I think the right way to go is using pattern synonyms. The whole point of hiding constructors is to avoid leaking any information about the structure of the...

> Moreover, everything is definable for anyone using foldg, right ? I think everything from the `Foldable` class is implementable using `foldg`. But perhaps we could also add a safe...