abela at chalmers.se
Mon Jan 18 16:27:48 UTC 2016
+1 Same opinion as Joachim. --Andreas
On 18.01.2016 16:43, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 03:17 +0100 schrieb Niklas Hambüchen:
>> I propose to add to Data.Bool:
>> -- | Boolean implication.
>> implies :: Bool -> Bool -> Bool
>> implies True x = x
>> implies False _ = True
>> infix 4 `implies` -- same as (==)
> I’m +1 on the grounds that although I know that one of <= or => cuts
> it, it causes extra mental work to find out which (and annoyance to
> find out that it is the “wrong” one). Using a name is explicit and gets
> it right the first time.
> -1 on changing the order for Bool, it would just break too much code
> that relies on that in a fairly obscure way.
> +1 for making it right-associative, as implications are usually
> Undecided about ==>. It would be nice, but the conflict with quickcheck
> would be annoying. Leaning towards -1.
Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden
andreas.abel at gu.se
More information about the Libraries