> On Fri Sep 8 15:58:10 UTC 2017, Carter Schonwald wrote: > > I mostly wanted to confirm that we in fact will actually say yes > before doing the formal writtingup :)
Seriously -- and please stop using smileys: you're right to be cautious. You need to rewrite the whole of Section 6.4 (nearly 5 pages), starting with changing the title. And I think it'll be a struggle to clarify what applies to genuine numbers vs what applies to 'other stuff'. As Bardur says: > far from trivial to spec without reference to implementation details I think there's another way: leave Sec 6.4 largely unchanged. Add a short note that implementations might extend class `Num` to include non-numbers. GHC 'morally complies' to section 6.4 for Numbers. (i.e. all number types are members of `Num, Eq, Show`.) GHC has (or allows) other types in `Num` which are not numbers, so section 6.4 doesn't apply. I'm puzzled by Bardur's other comments: > On Fri Sep 8 16:16:54 UTC 2017, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > > There aren't really any widely used Haskell compilers > other than GHC ... That's true and sad and a weakness for Haskell in general. On this particular topic there are other compilers: GHC prior v7.4, Hugs. > and speccing for things that aren't actually used in practice ... But there's already a spec! namely the existing report. And `Eq`, `Show` for numbers are used heavily. I think this proposal is not to remove `Eq, Show` from number types that already have them(?) But Carter's subject line does seem to be saying that, which is what alarmed me at first reading. AntC _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
