Levent Erkok wrote:
...I think this proposal needs to be shelved for the time being.
Nevertheless, I vote for doing it now. A better, more featureful, and more principled approach to FP is definitely needed. It would be great if we could tackle that and finally solve it - and I think we can. But that's a huge issue which has been discussed extensively in the past, and orthogonal to Levant's proposal. In the meantime, adding new functions that provide access to more FP functionality without adding any significant new weirdness are welcome, and will naturally flow into whatever future solution to the broader FP issue we implement. It makes little difference whether or not we provide a bad but working default implementation; my vote is to provide it. It will prevent breakage in case someone happens to have implemented a manual RealFloat instance out there somewhere, and it won't affect the standard instances because we'll provide implementations for those. Obviously a clear explanatory Haddock comment would be required. Even better, trigger a warning if an instance does not provide an explicit implementation, but I'm not sure if that's possible. I'm still in favor of doing Levant's proposal now even if the consensus is to omit the default. I vote for the usual practice of a human-readable name, but don't let bikeshedding hold this back. Thanks, Yitz