I don't think flipping it is the way to go; I expect things to
short-circuit from left to right.
On Jan 18, 2016 4:14 AM, "Herbert Valerio Riedel"
On 2016-01-18 at 03:17:44 +0100, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
[...]
The request for this is quite old (see e.g.
http://neilmitchell.blogspot.de/2007/02/logical-implication-in-haskell.html ).
I believe that by not trying to use an operator for it, and keeping it in Data.Bool, we can avoid doing anything wrong.
Just wondering, what could/would go wrong if we did use an operator `==>` (still be hidden in Data.Bool[1]), i.e.
(==>) :: Bool -> Bool -> Bool True ==> x = x False ==> _ = True
this would leave open the option to have an obvious flipped version
(<==) :: Bool -> Bool -> Bool (<==) = flip (==>)
[1]: Consequently, if `==>` is available only via explicit Data.Bool import, a conflict with QuickCheck's (==>) shouldn't be a big issue IMHO _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries