Rinat Stryungis <lazybone...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi. I have a question about a possible way of unification of Nat and > Natural. I've almost done that, but only in case of using integer-gmp. > If I use integer-simple there is a completely different definition of > Natural. > > How I construct now naturalTyCon (to make `naturalTy` to use it instead of > `typeNatKind`) : > > ```naturalTyCon :: TyCon > naturalTyCon = pcTyCon naturalTyConName Nothing [] [natSDataCon,natJDataCon] > > natSDataCon :: DataCon > natSDataCon = pcDataCon natSDataConName [] [wordPrimTy] naturalTyCon > > etc... > ``` > Now I have to check`DynFlags` in a few places to reimplement `naturalTyCon` > in case of using `integer-simple`. > > Is there a way to avoid hardcoding of `naturalTy`? > My colleague said that it would be nice to get `naturalTy` from an > environment by something like `lookupTyCon`, > but there are many functions whose don't use any environment like functions > from `typeNatTyCons` list in `GHC.Builtin.Types.Literals`. > > Now I am going to use `DynFlags` checking, but it looks like an ugly way...
Note that all of this will be moot in a matter of days. The ghc-bignum patch, which will ship in 8.12, removes integer-simple and uses a consistent number representation across its various supported backends. In light of this, if I were you I would probably just settle for a hack in the meantime. Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
