Question about sets

[Scott J.]

Well.

I have a question. Why are sets not implemented in Haskell? . I have read a
bit how the compiler is made. Ok lists are easier to implement but sets
could have been implemented too.
So why didn't the implementors not do it?

Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Cast" <jcast@ou.edu>
To: "Scott J." <jscott@planetinternet.be>
Cc: <haskell-cafe@haskell.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Question about the use of an inner forall


> "Scott J." <jscott@planetinternet.be> wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I am going to stop this discussion . What counts for me at this
> > moment is that I know how it works.
>
> Alright.
>
> > I thank everybody who replied to my email.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > As for the discussion about Curry Howard isomorphism and more about
> > type theory, I shall gladly discuss these things further but than in
> > private email.
>
> Do you mean ``but in private email''?  Why?  I think that, because of
> the strong mathematical basis underlying Haskell, these things are
> on-topic.  So, why not let the list profit from the discussion?
>
> > Hey, I hope really that I know how it works but this seems to be
> > confirmed in these emails.
>
> > I left Ocamel for Haskell for it's more functional approach.
>
> > I think documentation about the features extending Haskell 98 is
> > very needed for those who want only to program with the
> > language Haskell.
>
> True; unfortunately, too many extensions are documented only in
> technical papers...
>
> > Thx for all replies
>
> > Scott
>
> Jon Cast
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>