Proposal: Data.Bool.implies

[David Feuer]

How exactly would making the Ord instance for Bool lazier be "disastrous"?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:59 PM, evan at evan-borden.com
<evan at evanrutledgeborden.dreamhosters.com> wrote:
> +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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>