Re: Type-level sized Word literals???

Modulo the backward-compatibility piece around today's type-level numbers, I'm in support of this direction. No new type machinery is needed, other than a new interpretation for literals, because type families can already infer a kind argument from the return kind. This is almost entirely a change to libraries, not to GHC itself. Richard

On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:32 AM, Vladislav Zavialov via ghc-devs wrote:

I agree caution is warranted, but I still want the type level to behave as closely as possible to the term level, where literals are currently overloaded.

I don't care if it's monomorphic literals everywhere or overloaded literals everywhere, but I oppose a discrepancy.

Vlad

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 10:05 Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote: I'm pretty cautious about attempting to replicate type classes (or a weaker version thereof) at the kind level. An alternative would be to us *non-overloaded* literals.

Simon _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs