Question about sets

20 Aug 2002

      Well.

I have a question. Why are sets not implemented in Haskell? . I have read a
bit how the compiler is made. Ok lists are easier to implement but sets
could have been implemented too.
So why didn't the implementors not do it?

Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Cast" 
To: "Scott J." 
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Question about the use of an inner forall
...
"Scott J."  wrote:
...
Hi,
...
I am going to stop this discussion . What counts for me at this
moment is that I know how it works.
Alright.
...
I thank everybody who replied to my email.
You're welcome.
...
As for the discussion about Curry Howard isomorphism and more about
type theory, I shall gladly discuss these things further but than in
private email.
Do you mean ``but in private email''?  Why?  I think that, because of
the strong mathematical basis underlying Haskell, these things are
on-topic.  So, why not let the list profit from the discussion?
...
Hey, I hope really that I know how it works but this seems to be
confirmed in these emails.
...
I left Ocamel for Haskell for it's more functional approach.
...
I think documentation about the features extending Haskell 98 is
very needed for those who want only to program with the
language Haskell.
True; unfortunately, too many extensions are documented only in
technical papers...
...
Thx for all replies
...
Scott
Jon Cast
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe