n+k patterns

[John Launchbury]

I strongly disapprove of n+k patterns from a whole-language taste
perspective, so I am most unkeen to broaden their scope. Because they are
such a language kludge already it simply doesn't make sense to try to reason
rationally about what the "best" answer for them is. It's like putting
lipstick on a chicken.

If anything, we should have restricted them to the very simplest case
covered in the early textbooks, i.e. just Int.

John

> | hbc is on the Integral side, if that counts. :-)
> | Just because ghc doesn't follow the spec isn't a good reason
> | to change the spec. :-)
> 
> I absolutely didn't say that!  All I'm saying is
> 
> * Two of the four impls have to change regardless
> * The change is non-de-stabilising on the rest of the report
> * So we should think what the "best" answer is
> 
> I argued that (Num a, Ord a) makes most sense to me.
> You argued that (Integral a) was a conscious choice (something I
> don't remember but I'm sure you're right), and is the right one anyway.
> 
> I'd be interested to know what others think.  If there's any doubt,
> we'll stay with Integral.
> 
> Simon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell mailing list
> Haskell@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell