Hi
On 14 Mar 2008, at 03:48, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Adrian Hey wrote:
I would ask for any correct Eq instance something like the law:
(x==y) = True implies x=y (and vice-versa)
which implies f x = f y for all definable f
which implies (f x == f y) = True (for expression types which are
Conor McBride wrote:
Hi
On 14 Mar 2008, at 03:48, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Adrian Hey wrote:
I would ask for any correct Eq instance something like the law:
(x==y) = True implies x=y (and vice-versa)
which implies f x = f y for all definable f
which implies (f x == f y) = True (for
Hello All,
I'm top posting because I'm getting bored and frustrated with this
thread and I don't want to respond detail to everything Aaron has said
below.
Aaron: Where are you getting this equivalence stuff from?
Searching the report for the word equivalence the only remotely
relevant section
Hi folks
I'm late into this thread, so apologies if
I'm being dim.
On 13 Mar 2008, at 16:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrian Hey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would ask for any correct Eq instance something like the law:
(x==y) = True implies x=y (and vice-versa)
I wish I knew what =
Hi
On 13 Mar 2008, at 23:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Conor McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded to my comment:
(mapMonotonic should of course be removed, too,
or specified to fail (preferably in some MonadZero)
if the precondition is violated,
which should still be implementable in linear
Adrian Hey wrote:
I would ask for any correct Eq instance something like the law:
(x==y) = True implies x=y (and vice-versa)
which implies f x = f y for all definable f
which implies (f x == f y) = True (for expression types which are
instances of Eq). This pretty much requires structural
