Proposal (breaking change, but probably not one that will break any real code): strictify genericLength

[David Feuer]

On Aug 2, 2014 10:29 PM, "Bertram Felgenhauer" <
bertram.felgenhauer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> The motivating example I've seen is using lazy natural numbers,

Natural numbers aren't an entirely legitimate instance of Num either,
because they don't support negate. Of course, this is a good argument for
the Num class itself being broken, but unless someone *actually* relies on
genericLength for lazy Nats, I think it's a good enough excuse not to
support it for genericLength when doing so effectively renders
genericLength useless for anything else. Calling something "generic" for
Num when it's really only generic for things that look like lazy naturals
doesn't seem very sane.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140802/55336093/attachment.html>