Proposal: Data.Bool.implies

[evan@evan-borden.com]

+1 For not changing the Ord instance for Bool. It would be disastrous. As
an aside, is the Order instance for Bool in the report?
On Jan 22, 2016 12:24 PM, "Iavor Diatchki" <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please don't change the ordering on Bool---it's been like that forever and
> it might lead to extremely subtle bugs that won't be caught by the compiler.
>
> I am ambivalent about adding an `implies` function as long as it is not
> automatically in scope.  However, can anyone give some examples of using
> this in your code?  All the ones I could think of would seem easier to
> follow when written with `if-then-else` or a guard.
>
> -Iavor
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Felipe Lessa <felipe.lessa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for either Data.Bool.implies or Data.Bool.(==>).
>>
>> +1 for right-associativity.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Felipe.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20160122/c39ef9f7/attachment.html>