Re: To all those who don't like ad-hoc overloading

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Kevin Atkinson wrote:

> I am not going to argue with you any more.  We have a different
> definitions of what is easy to read.  To me:
> 
>   union fun list1 list2
> 
> ...                                             The union and unionBy
> is not so much what I object to as having to write two definitions for
> union when I should only really have to write one using a generic
> comparison function.

"Generic comparison function" is not really what I mean here.  What I
mean is a single generic union which will have its
comparison function default to (==) if one is not specified.

It COULD be written something like

union (cmp = (==)) l1 l2
  ...

where
  union l1 l2
means 
  union (==) l1 l2

This way I don't have to write

unionBy cmp l1 l2
  ...
union l1 l1
  unionBy (==) l1 l2

Sorry for any confusion.

---
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/