Who needs Ord for Sets and Maps anyway?

[Samuel Bronson]

On 19/01/06, ajb at spamcop.net <ajb at spamcop.net> wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> Quoting Jean-Philippe Bernardy <jeanphilippe.bernardy at gmail.com>:
>
> > It is also much more inline with the
> > haskell style. See for example, Num class:
> > (+) :: a -> a -> a
>
> A lot of people don't like this type, especially for multiplication.  It
> makes implementing types based on vector spaces much more complicated,
> for example.

Well, obviously it would be nice to be able to do that, but has anyone
figured out *how* yet? This sounds kinda like how we haven't got a
collections framework yet because no one has figured out how to type
it nicely... wait, isn't that what we were talking about to start
with?