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