Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My vote would be to scrap it. Enum sounds like it defines an ordering > of elements, and that's IMHO not what the actual implementation looks
Just before everybody else points it out; that's a bit imprecise. But the IMHO obvious way to regard succ would be to provide a succession of all the elements in a set, rather than just add one to a numeric interpretation of the value. Defining [x..y] in terms of succ sound counter-intuitive to me (and isn't a different mechanism needed for [x,y..z] anyway?) -kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell