I strongly disapprove of n+k patterns from a whole-language taste perspective, so I am most unkeen to broaden their scope. Because they are such a language kludge already it simply doesn't make sense to try to reason rationally about what the "best" answer for them is. It's like putting lipstick on a chicken.
If anything, we should have restricted them to the very simplest case covered in the early textbooks, i.e. just Int. John > | 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. > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell