I think the usual approach for defining these sorts of primitive operations is to use unsafeCoerce.On Wed, May 23, 2018, 7:39 PM Conal Elliott <conal@conal.net> wrote:______________________________When programming with GHC's type-level natural numbers and `KnownNat` constraints, how can one construct *evidence* of the result of comparisons to be used in further computations? For instance, we might define a type for augmenting the results of `compare` with evidence:> data CompareEv u v> = (u < v) => CompareLT> | (u ~ v) => CompareEQ> | (u > v) => CompareGTThen I'd like to define a comparison operation (to be used with `AllowAmbiguousTypes` and `TypeApplications`, alternatively taking proxy arguments):> compareEv :: (KnownNat m, KnownNat n) => CompareEv u vWith `compareEv`, we can bring evidence into scope in `case` expressions.I don't know how to implement `compareEv`. The following attempt fails to type-check, since `compare` doesn't produce evidence (which is the motivation for `compareEv` over `compare`):> compareEv = case natVal (Proxy @ u) `compare` natVal (Proxy @ v) of> LT -> CompareLT> EQ -> CompareEQ> GT -> CompareGTCan `compareEv` be implemented in GHC Haskell? Is there already an implementation of something similar? Any other advice?Thanks, -- Conal_________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow- haskell-users