John Meacham wrote:
1. one really does logically derive from the other, Eq and Ord are like
this, the rules of Eq says it must be an equivalance relation and that
Ord defines a total order over that equivalance relation. this is a good
thing, as it lets you write code that depends on these properties.
given an Ord instance (for a type T) a corresponding Eq instance can be
given by:
instance Eq T where
a == b = compare a b == EQ
This does not make the definition of an Ord instance (that is supposed
to match an equivalence) easier but ensures at least the required
consistency.
I never dared to define this generically and switch on various ghc
extensions:
instance Ord a => Eq a where ...
It just strikes me that wrt. "NaN" the Ord instances for Float and
Double are no total orders (and thus these types are not suited for
sets, i.e. "Data.Set.Set Float")
Cheers Christian
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
