<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Dag Odenhall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dag.odenhall@gmail.com" target="_blank">dag.odenhall@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><p style="margin:1.2em 0px!important">Let's also make number literals monomorphic to <code style="font-size:0.85em;font-family:Consolas,Inconsolata,Courier,monospace;margin:0px 0.15em;padding:0px 0.3em;white-space:pre-wrap;border:1px solid rgb(234,234,234);background-color:rgb(248,248,248);border-radius:3px 3px 3px 3px;display:inline">Integer</code> and provide an <code style="font-size:0.85em;font-family:Consolas,Inconsolata,Courier,monospace;margin:0px 0.15em;padding:0px 0.3em;white-space:pre-wrap;border:1px solid rgb(234,234,234);background-color:rgb(248,248,248);border-radius:3px 3px 3px 3px;display:inline">n :: Num a => Integer -> a</code>!</p>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm guessing this is sarcastic, but I just want to clarify what I understood Henning's proposal to be. He's not saying we should provide an `o` function in the standard library, but rather encourage users to define their own. This one liner would take the place of the current line that they devote right now to `OverloadedStrings` .</div>
<div><br></div><div>However, the analogy is still apt since the exact same line of reasoning applies to overloaded numeric literals where we currently rely on defaulting to solve this problem.</div></div></div></div>