<div dir="ltr">Hello,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:34, Ross Paterson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ross@soi.city.ac.uk" target="_blank">ross@soi.city.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 05:17:41PM +0200, José Pedro Magalhães wrote:<br>
> Basically, a new module Data.Data in base contains the previous<br>
> Data.Generics.Basics and most of the instances from Data.Generics.Instances.<br>
> Other changes are:<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 13:28, José Pedro Magalhães <<a href="mailto:jpm@cs.uu.nl" target="_blank">jpm@cs.uu.nl</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> + Ratio has to be fixed to have a consistent instance: either it's seen<br>
> as an abstract datatype (therefore with undefined gunfold) or a gfoldl<br>
> has to be defined matching its gunfold;<br>
><br>
> Ratio had its gfoldl defined to match its gunfold. Since GHC.Ratio exports the<br>
> constructor (:%), I guess Ratio cannot be considered abstract.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think GHC.Ratio counts as part of the public interface.<br>
But Ratio isn't a showstopper.</blockquote><div><br>Sorry, I meant GHC.Real. But I am not sure on this definition either; no one before had suggested whether to remove or add functionality to this instance,just that the previous state was inconsistent.<br>
</div></div><br><br>Thanks,<br>Pedro<br></div>