Re: 2533: Generic functions that take integral arguments should work the same way as their prelude counterparts

On 2008 Aug 23, at 15:46, Gwern Branwen wrote:

I've actually long wondered about this: why don't more functions use Nat where it'd make sense? It can't be because Nat is hard to define - I'd swear I've seen many definitions of Nat (if not dozens when you count all the type-level exercises which include one).

Because naive definitions are dog-slow and fast definitions are anything but easy to use? -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allbery@kf8nh.com system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH