I don't care one way or the other about the creation of implies, I'm happy to bow to popular opinion either way.

I do care about changing the strictness of the comparisons in Ord Bool, however, and that would require a rather massive survey of what breaks, and what gets slower -- one that we simply haven't done -- before I'd even start to be comfortable with it.

-Edward

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:27 PM, wren romano <wren@community.haskell.org> wrote:

-1 for changing the Ord Bool instance, due to the likelihood of subtle
bugs and regressions.

-1 for using the name (==>) due to conflict with QuickCheck, Smallcheck, etc.

Ambivalent about adding an implication operator distinct from (<=),
mainly because I haven't needed it myself. IMO, the ordering on Bool
should be defined so that it coincides with implication, thanks to the
relationship to Boolean/Heyting algebras— which the current Ord
instance already does. Though I do agree that if implication is given
its own name then it ought to be lazy in the second argument, whereas
it's not clear that (<=) should share that strictness/laziness.

Personally, were I to add something like implication, I'd define it
via a type class so that we can unify the things called (==>) in
various testing frameworks. Of course, doing this appropriately would
mean making a decent hierarchy of type classes for order/lattice
theory. But given as we don't have one of those yet, I'd do it in a
separate package so it could be played around with until everything
fits together nicely, and then aim to get it blessed into HP rather
than changing base.

--
Live well,
~wren

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries