Re: [ghc-steering-committee] #364: Unify Nat and Natural, recommendation: accept

Hi in a recent project of mine, the difference between Nat and Natural was a serious hurdle in using dependentish types, so I am in favor. (Text and Symbol was the other, so this would not have unblocked me, but still). Cheers, Joachim Am Donnerstag, den 01.10.2020, 12:02 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Serrano Mena:

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 () 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-unif...

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 _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/