and / or

First question: how bad would it be to use the Prelude definitions of and and or? I assume if there's a problem it's probably excessive duplication by the inliner? Second question: if that would be bad, why not rewrite them to foldr forms, then write them back, like other things do? Statement: if the current arrangement really is the best, then we should add two additional rules: "and/augment" forall (g::forall b.(Bool->b->b)->b->b) (xs::[Bool]) . and (augment g xs) = g (&&) (and xs) "or/augment" forall (g::forall b.(Bool->b->b)->b->b) (xs::[Bool]) . or (augment g) = g (||) (or xs)