Proposal: Data.Bool.implies

[Henning Thielemann]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Andrew Butterfield wrote:

> In equational logic, it makes more sense for implication to bind tighter than equivalence,
> and it would usually be considered as infixr
>
> a `implies` b `implies` c    same as  a `implies` (b `implies` c) 
>
> But if this breaks something else then plain infix is fine....
>
> That this is the same associativity rule as for function arrows is not a coincidence, by the way.

It is currying in logic. I assume it was the reason to make 'implies' 
infixr in utility-ht.