Modulo the backward-compatibility piece around today's type-level numbers, I'm in support of this direction. No new type machinery is needed, other than a new interpretation for literals, because type families can already infer a kind argument from the return kind. This is almost entirely a change to libraries, not to GHC itself.
Richard > On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:32 AM, Vladislav Zavialov via ghc-devs > <ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote: > > I agree caution is warranted, but I still want the type level to behave as > closely as possible to the term level, where literals are currently > overloaded. > > I don't care if it's monomorphic literals everywhere or overloaded literals > everywhere, but I oppose a discrepancy. > > Vlad > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 10:05 Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjo...@gmail.com > <mailto:simon.peytonjo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I'm pretty cautious about attempting to replicate type classes (or a weaker > version thereof) at the kind level. An alternative would be to us > *non-overloaded* literals. > > Simon > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
