On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AFAICT the report is ambiguous about this, or at least the non-intutive > equality semantics are not at all clear to me from what I can see in > the Eq class definition (para 6.3.1). I think an the absence of any > clear and *explicit* statement to the contrary people are entitled to > assume this law is mandatory for all (correct) Eq instances.
In mathematics we usually *don't* assume things that aren't stated assumptions. Luke _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe