2533: Generic functions that take integral arguments should work the same way as their prelude counterparts

[Sean Leather]

Brandon S. Allbery wrote:

> Gwern Branwen wrote:
>
>> I've actually long wondered about this: why don't more functions use Nat
>> where it'd make sense? It can't be because Nat is hard to define - I'd swear
>> I've seen many definitions of Nat (if not dozens when you count all the
>> type-level exercises which include one).
>>
>
> Because naive definitions are dog-slow and fast definitions are anything
> but easy to use?
>

Can you examples of both naive definitions and fast definitions of Nat? I'm
curious.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20080824/bccd2b27/attachment.htm