Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2008 08:11 schrieb Lennart Augustsson: > Some people seem to think that == is an equality predicate. > This is a big source of confusion for them; until they realize that == is > just another function returning Bool they will make claims like > [1..]==[1..] having an unnatural result. > > The == function is only vaguely related to the equality predicate in that > it is meant to be a computable approximation of semantic equality (but > since it's overloaded it can be anything, of course). > > -- Lennart
But class methods are expected to fulfill some axioms. I’d suppose that (==) should be an equivalence relation. Of course, this is not implementable because of infininte data structures. But one could relax the axioms such that it’s allowed for (==) to return _|_ instead of the expected value. Differentiating between data and codata would of course be the better solution. However, the fact that (0 / 0) == (0 / 0) yields False is quite shocking. It doesn’t adhere to any meaningful axiom set for Eq. So I think that this behavior should be changed. Think of a set implementation which uses (==) to compare set elements for equality. The NaN behavior would break this implementation since it would allow for sets which contain NaN multiple times. Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
