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

[Joachim Breitner]

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 (<mail at joachim-breitner.de>) 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-unify-natural.rst
> > 
> > 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 at haskell.org
> > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
-- 
Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/