2010/12/30 Andreas Baldeau andr...@baldeau.net:
instance Ord TypeRep where
compare t1 t2 =
compare
(unsafePerformIO (typeRepKey t1))
(unsafePerformIO (typeRepKey t2))
I think it would suffice. Thank you for a tip.
On 01:08 Sun 05 Dec , Serguey Zefirov wrote:
Why TypeRep does have equality and doesn't have ordering?
It would be good to have that.
I think the problem is, that it's hard to give an ordering that stays the
same for all runs of your program. If you don't need this property you could
use
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Serguey Zefirov sergu...@gmail.com wrote:
Why TypeRep does have equality and doesn't have ordering?
It would be good to have that.
Yes, I have wanted that too. It would make maps from types to values
possible/efficient. There is a very critical path in jhc that
Why TypeRep does have equality and doesn't have ordering?
It would be good to have that.
Right now when I have to order two type representations I convert them
to string and then compare. This is somewhat inefficient and not quite
straightforward.
___
Why should they? You can compare them in whatever way you like. And there
isn't a natural/inherent sense of total order between types.
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Serguey Zefirov sergu...@gmail.com wrote:
Why TypeRep does have equality and doesn't have ordering?
It would be good to have
2010/12/5 Tianyi Cui tianyi...@gmail.com:
Why should they? You can compare them in whatever way you like. And there
isn't a natural/inherent sense of total order between types.
I cannot compare then the way I'd like. ;)
Consider the following:
data BiMap a = BiMap {
values :: Map Int a
