Move unnecessary normal dependencies to devDependencies

[rpominov]

These dependencies are not needed for fantasy-land npm package to work.

[davidchambers]

These dependencies are not needed for fantasy-land npm package to work.

That depends on which parts of the package you're using. require('fantasy-land') works without daggy and fantasy-combinators, but require('fantasy-land/laws/traversable') requires these dependencies to be installed.

Are you suggesting the laws should be defined in a separate npm package, or that since they're only used for testing they should only not be installed in production?

[rpominov]

Ah, good point. I forgot that package also exposes laws tests. Not sure what a right course of action here then. I'll close this PR for now, maybe we'll figure out something later.

[safareli]

Use of duggy in laws/traversable is sort of redundant in think, we could replace that lines with this:

-const {tagged} = require('daggy');
-const Compose = tagged('c');
+function Compose(c) {
+  if (!(this instanceof Compose)) {
+    return new Compose(c)
+  }
+  this.c = c
+}

(actually same is in id_test too: const Sum = tagged('v');)

And about fantasy-combinators we use Identity (12 times), apply (3 times) and compose (3 times). there are 9 functions in fantasy-combinators and we use 3 and each is just one line, so maybe it's better to could just create combinators.js and include this 3 functions in there?

[SimonRichardson]

I'm not a fan of code duplication for the sake of it :|

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, 10:23 Irakli Safareli, notifications@github.com
wrote:

Use of duggy in laws/traversable is sort of redundant in think, we could
replace that lines with this:

-const {tagged} = require('daggy');-const Compose = tagged('c');+function Compose(c) {+ if (!(this instanceof Compose)) {+ return new Compose(c)+ }+ this.c = c+}

(actually same is in id_test too: const Sum = tagged('v');)

And about fantasy-combinators we use Identity (12 times), apply (3 times)
and compose (3 times). there are 9 functions in fantasy-combinators and
we use 3 and each is just one line, so maybe it's better to could just
create combinators.js and include this 3 functions in there?

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#168 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACcaGEN0FAc0CC22X3nOidgfiBNh8B85ks5qskkGgaJpZM4J_5xT
.

[safareli]

On one side a) we have 2 dependencies and on other side b) duplication of 3 online functions and expansion of 2 constructors.

If we go with b) FL will have 0 dependency so library contributors will be easily convinced to use FL as dependency. Of course this point has value in case we want libs to depend on FL, which I think is what we should be aiming for as it will make it clear what version of FL a lib conforms to without digging into it's docs.

[rpominov]

Good point about determining to which version of FL a library conforms to. Didn't thought about it this way.

[safareli]

Also it's handy to see libs which depend on FL in npm

[rpominov]

Wow, that's a good alternative to implementations.md that can be more complete and automatically up to date!

[SimonRichardson]

I think if it boils down to this it's beyond pathetic. I just don't see value in it. If we think this, then I'd go the whole hog and remove all the other libraries in fantasy-land repos and just host a markdown file.