Who needs Ord for Sets and Maps anyway?

Samuel Bronson naesten at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 20:13:21 EST 2006

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

More information about the Libraries mailing list