Now, I'm not saying that it's worth it to have typeclasses, and I realize there are disadvantages that make them likely unsuitable for Elm.
But when an issue like this arises, it's worth mentioning that this is *exactly* the kind of problem that typeclasses solve. Passing around a comparison function would also solve this, though in a verbose way that, to my knowledge, nobody has actually really tried. On Jul 9, 2016 6:49 PM, "Max Goldstein" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, this is the expected behavior. You can't equate functions, even in > theory, except that reference equality implies function equality. That's > exactly what you see in your first case > > Yes it would be nice for the compiler to catch this, but it's less trivial > than you may think, since it has to track functions in data structures > nested arbitrarily deeply. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Elm Discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
