On Mon Nov 13 12:27:08 EST 2006, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> In my experience I've seen more requests for overloaded *Boolean*
> literals than strings. In a Fran context, for example.
Has there been discussion of the related issue, described in a Pan
paper as 'Unfortunately, the Bool type is wired into the signatures of
operations like >= and ||.'? (I searched the trac but couldn't find
it?)
It seems common to have to write something like:
class OrdE a where
(>*) :: a -> a -> a
etc.
While for finite signals both have meaning, ie.
[1,2,3] > [1,2,1] == True
[1,2,3] >* [1,2,1] == [False,False,True]
for infinite signals '>' is often a nonsense, and if these are the
primary type it'd be nice to write '>' for '>*'.
Regards,
Rohan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
