According to this issue in the bug tracker the old definition does not obey the associative law.
Although I know little about such things, I suspect an other problem is redundancy:
Pure a
Plus [Pure a]
Plus [Plus [Pure a]]
...
all seem to represent the same thing. Free structures are generally supposed to be unique. There are times when they cannot be represented uniquely (e.g., free abelian groups) but when possible they should be.
Actually, I think the suggested alternative suffers from the same problem, although it might be possible to repair it by using NonEmpty
instead of []
. So this change could just be a matter of removing excess cruft from the library.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…