ANum seems to be just Data.Monoid.Ap.
Also, I can see not wanting to worsen the error messages, though it is
worth pointing out that we already have a Monoid instance with the same
semantics, and a similar potential for confusing error messages.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018, 1:36 AM Dan Burton -1, per the very confusing errors that would ensue. If this behavior is desired, you can use a newtype wrapper. As it happens,
this fits the pattern of ANum http://hackage.haskell.org/package/ANum.
(Any Applicative can be made an instance of Num in this way.) -- Dan Burton On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:28 AM Tom Murphy On 11/11/18, Henning Thielemann On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Henning Thielemann wrote: On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, Daniel Cartwright wrote: relevant reddit comment
thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/9vtis5/the_universe_of_discourse_i... urce=reddit-android https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Num_instance_for_functions&oldid=36632 In short: It would make 2(x+y) no longer a type error but equivalent to 2. We
would lose a lot of type safety for little syntactic gain. Btw. before adding more Wat instances please implement the GHC warning
about such instances:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11796 This is my feeling as well. Tom
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries _______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries