These are really nice examples to motivate why you definitely want a total order!
(I’ve definitely pondered wanting partial order shenanigans in the past and these simple example do a very nice job illustrating why I wouldn’t ! ).
`seq` would be an issue too.
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020, Tikhon Jelvis wrote:
> In the proposals for relative precedences that I've heard before, it
> would be a syntactic error to use two operators that *don't* have
> explicitly defined relationships without parentheses. + and * would work
> together the way you would expect from math, but you simply wouldn't be
> able to mix them with ++ without parentheses. Seems like this would
> avoid spooky action at a distance since operators that aren't clearly
> related simply don't have relative precedences at all.
right
> Not sure how to handle operators like $ in a system like that though.
($) in GHC is already an exception because it works with forall-quantified
operands, too.
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries