I'll happily incorporate the code if someone sends me a patch...
Cheers,
Simon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Daume III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 29 May 2002 15:03
> To: Johannes Waldmann
> Cc: GHC Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: instance Ord FiniteMap
>
>
> I agree; the problem is that I fear that making my own
> instance by using
> setToList will be very inefficient (or at least much more so than an
> instance which actually looks at the tree structure).
>
> --
> Hal Daume III
>
> "Computer science is no more about computers | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> than astronomy is about telescopes." -Dijkstra | www.isi.edu/~hdaume
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>
> > > for instance, Sets of Sets of things would be really nice.
> >
> > Sure. One could simply use lexicographic ordering
> > (i. e. s1 `compare` s2 = setToList s1 `compare` setToList s2)
> > or length-lexicographic ordering (for efficiency)
> > ... = (cardinality s1, setToList s1) `compare`
> (cardinality s2, setToList s2)
> >
> > As you write, there seems to be no reason not to do this.
> > An Ord instance should be a linear ordering, and the above are.
> > --
> > -- Johannes Waldmann ----
> http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~joe/ --
> > --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- phone/fax (+49) 341 9732 204/252 --
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
