Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> I don't quite understand your argument. Do you argue against my point or not?
"Brrr also" was meant as "I agree to your `Brrr`." And
> I wanted to say that with type classes we would be able to decide for which
> types we want to define orderings and would be able to check at compile time
> whether comparisons take place only with types which have an ordering defined
> for them.
And the rest of my comment was stating that in case of type classes I
was also not sure if functions should be in class EQ.
Sorry for the misleading mail!
Bernd
_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Do Mär 23 2006 - 14:25:03 CET