Aaron Denney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, the way the report specifies that max's default definition > is. I'd actually favor making that not an instance function at > all, and instead have max and min be external functions.
If you permit a naïve question: Prelude> :i Ord class (Eq a) => Ord a where compare :: a -> a -> Ordering (<) :: a -> a -> Bool (>=) :: a -> a -> Bool (>) :: a -> a -> Bool (<=) :: a -> a -> Bool max :: a -> a -> a min :: a -> a -> a ..while all functions could be easily derived from 'compare'. Or from the Eq instance's (==) and (<), say. What is the reason for this? Efficiency? (Which couldn't be handled equally well by RULES?) Otherwise, it looks like an invitation for writing inconsistent instances. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
