Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Post History

66%
+2 −0
Q&A Why does `Zip` require `Semialign`

There's good reason to believe this is simply historical accident. The Semialign class came first, and used to include zip and zipWith directly. When those members were separated out into their own...

posted 9mo ago by r~~‭

Answer
#1: Initial revision by user avatar r~~‭ · 2024-02-15T02:03:25Z (9 months ago)
There's good reason to believe this is simply historical accident. The `Semialign` class came first, and used to include `zip` and `zipWith` directly. When those members were separated out into their own class, the motivation was types that had `align` but not `zip` (one example is [`NEMap`](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/nonempty-containers-0.3.4.5/docs/Data-Map-NonEmpty.html#t:NEMap)), so `Zip` got the superclass instead of `Semialign`. In retrospect, perhaps making the two classes independent and defining a laws-only subclass of both would have been better.