Remove eq and show from num class

[Herbert Valerio Riedel]

Hello!

On 2017-09-07 at 18:16:39 +0200, Mario Blazevic wrote:
>> Btw, here's an old commit which updates the class diagram to this
>> effect for the report:
>>
>> https://github.com/hvr/haskell-report/commit/
>> 339ea257ee8b0451fbba388480566efac6ecbbd3
>>
> Ha, I wasn't aware of that repository.

I set up the hvr/haskell-report fork[1] shortly after I migrated and set
up the haskell/haskell-report repo back in 2015 to serve as an "updated"
inofficial Haskell201x report...

While looking through the report it became apparent to me that more
updates may be needed, and that a new Haskell Prime committee was needed
because such an inofficial Haskell report wouldn't provide the desired
authority of a properly produced language standard, and you know the
rest... :-)

> We agreed today to move the report itself to the
> https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/ repository.

Ok, so how does this change the procedure described at

  https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/blob/master/README.rst#successful-proposals

?

And what is the intended relationship between the haskell/rfcs and the
haskell/haskell-report repos?

> Should we move the build system around it as well? I'd say probably
> not, leave the haskell/haskell-report repository the canonical one and
> update it from haskell/rfcs/ once we're ready to publish.

Well, depends... the build-system is a bit incomplete as it only tests
that TeX still builds, the intention was to provide a CI system which
publishes its draft aftifacts somewhere for convenient previewing. And
if I understand this correctly, you intend to have RFCs be accompanied
by deltas to the report in the same repository; and if that's the case I
think the build-system makes a lot of sense to duplicate in the
haskell/rfcs repo.

If the report was written in reStructuredText we could simply use
something like the readthedocs.org service. But since it's LaTeX, we
have to do a little bit more work to publishes ("deploys" in newspeak)
.pdf drafts somewhere else, but it's doable.

I can take care to set it up, if it's clear what kind of CI/CD we want.

> I wish GitHub made it possible to symlink files in two repositories
> like this.

I wouldn't worry too much about that... we can cross that bridge when
we're close to a report worth publishing :-)


Cheers,
  HVR