Re: Make Eq type class single method

20 Oct 2021

      As in so many other cases, documenting the design decisions (that lead 
to (/=) in Eq) would have helped [even for the initial reflection on 
this design].

I see that in another thread there are reasons brought forward in favor 
of (/=).  So if the outcome of this discussion is "no change", the 
reasons should be added to the documentation of the Eq class.

--Andreas

On 2021-10-20 16:48, Brandon Allbery wrote:
...
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 
mailto:tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2017@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?

Re: Make Eq type class single method

Andreas Abel