Proposal: Add bool to Data.Bool

[Jake McArthur]

+1 for the original proposal.


On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/libraries<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20130911/74aa94bb/attachment.htm>