defining (-> Bool) as a set

[Christian Sievers]

Hal Daume III wrote:

> I'd like to be able to define something like

>   single x = \y -> if x == y then True else False

Just a note on style: it always hurts me to see something like

  if term then True else False

-- this is just the same as 'term'.

So you could say

  single x = \y -> x==y

which is in turn just the same as

  single x = (x==)

which is, amazingly, nothing more than

  single = (==)

-- one can debatte whether this is still better style than the first variant,
but it's surely interesting to realize.


All the best,
Christian Sievers