Aye.   Tidies this up, and I see no downside.

Simon

From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Alejandro Serrano Mena
Sent: 01 October 2020 11:02
To: Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de>
Cc: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] #364: Unify Nat and Natural, recommendation: accept

Dear all,

I recommend that we accept this proposal. The only problematic (read, not backwards-compatible) bit is the case of a type class having instances for both `Nat` and `Natural`, but that seems very unlikely.

Something which I thought about was whether any of `Nat` or `Natural` were implementing something akin to Peano naturals (so we could have inductive instances working on Zero and (Succ n)), both none of both do, so the alignment seems correct to me.

Regards,

Alejandro

El vie., 25 sept. 2020 a las 16:06, Joachim Breitner (<mail@joachim-breitner.de>) escribió:

Dear Committee,

this is your secretary speaking:

Unify Nat and Natural
has been proposed by Richard
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/364
https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/natural/proposals/0000-unify-natural.rst

I’ll propose Alejandro as the shepherd.

Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process

Thanks,
Joachim
--
Joachim Breitner
mail@joachim-breitner.de
http://www.joachim-breitner.de/


_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list
ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee