[Haskell-cafe] Re: (flawed?) benchmark : sort

[Luke Palmer]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Adrian Hey <ahey at iee.org> wrote:
>  AFAICT the report is ambiguous about this, or at least the non-intutive
>  equality semantics are not at all clear to me from what I can see in
>  the Eq class definition (para 6.3.1). I think an the absence of any
>  clear and *explicit* statement to the contrary people are entitled to
>  assume this law is mandatory for all (correct) Eq instances.

In mathematics we usually *don't* assume things that aren't stated
assumptions.

Luke