OK, OK, I give in! Integral it remains. I repent.
Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Rijk J. C. van Haaften [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: 30 January 2002 17:00 | To: Simon Peyton-Jones | Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: n+k patterns | | | At 03:27 30-01-02 -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: | >| hbc is on the Integral side, if that counts. :-) | >| Just because ghc doesn't follow the spec isn't a good reason to | >| change the spec. :-) | > | >I absolutely didn't say that! All I'm saying is | > | >* Two of the four impls have to change regardless | >* The change is non-de-stabilising on the rest of the report | >* So we should think what the "best" answer is | > | >I argued that (Num a, Ord a) makes most sense to me. | >You argued that (Integral a) was a conscious choice | (something I don't | >remember but I'm sure you're right), and is the right one anyway. | > | >I'd be interested to know what others think. If there's any doubt, | >we'll stay with Integral. | | Personally I vote for keeping Integral. The strongest reason | for my choice is that if we want to be sure the pattern is | really correct, we need a bijection. For Integral, we have + | and - to form one, but we can't construct one for Float and | Double, though by this change they would be allowed in the pattern. | | Rijk-Jan van Haaften | | _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
