Proposal: Add bool to Data.Bool
ekmett at gmail.com
Wed Sep 11 20:26:53 CEST 2013
I'm also rather against `mux`, not only on partiality grounds, but also on
the grounds that it is not very easily optimized away.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
> I'd prefer something more like:
>> mux :: Enum b => [a] -> b -> a
>> mux xs x = xs !! fromEnum x
>> so then 'bool' could be implemented as:
>> bool :: a -> a -> Bool -> a
>> bool f t = mux [f, t]
>> but 'mux' needs a stronger type signature. The size of the enum is
>> known at compile-time. Is there any way to constrain the input list
> I don't like a total function to be implemented using a non-total function
> (!!). Additionally your implementation relies on fromEnum True == 1, which
> is a bad thing.
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries