Ord for Bools

[oxinabox]

consider

>=> :p True < False
Type error:Couldn't synthesize a class dictionary for: (Ord Bool)

:p True < False
        ^^

Though the main reason i wanted this was that findfirst and findlast could then be just be argmin and argmax when applied to a table of booleans.
Perhaps better would be to implement those directly

[apaszke]

I have mixed feelings about adding ordering to booleans 😕 On the other hand we already allow those as index sets, but I've started wondering if that wasn't a mistake.

[oxinabox]

I have mixed feelings about adding ordering to booleans

Agreed.

You could have Bool and Int1 as seperate types.

[apaszke]

Yes, that sounds reasonable. Or just use Fin 2

[dan-zheng]

I would also lean towards not adding an Ord Bool instance unless there's an unsolved motivating use case (where Fin 2 doesn't work or conversion is too unergonomic).

Some precedent: Haskell has an Ord Bool instance while Swift does not.

I'll move this to Discussions now, since this is more like a discussion than an issue.