On Wednesday 29 May 2002 02:58, Hal Daume III wrote: > Is there any particular reason FiniteMap (and hence Set) aren't instances > of Ord? I realize it's "weird" to define a map to be ordered, but even if > the Ord definition were in some sense "nonsensical", being able to have, > for instance, Sets of Sets of things would be really nice. >
I guess I talked about combinatorics of finite sets a while ago. heh ;) -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
