Make Eq type class single method

[Brandon Allbery]

>
> I'm finding it hard to think of a case where (/=) would be any easier to
> define than (==).


On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:43 AM Tom Ellis <
tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2017 at jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 04:39:21PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > I am revisiting some educational material about Haskell, and I stumble
> > over something that I keep stumbling over. I thought there was prior
> > discussion, but I couldn’t find it (operators hard hard to google for).
> >
> > Why does Eq have a (/=) method?
>
> Perhaps sometimes it is easier to define (/=) and use the default
> definition of (==) in terms of it?
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>


-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh
allbery.b at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20211020/baa734d7/attachment.html>