For sure. It's a bit sad, though, that we're discarding a perfectly good name simply because it was originally stuck in the wrong class. I guess
#12970: Add default implementation for Bits.bitSize -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: txnull | Owner: dfeuer Type: feature request | Status: patch Priority: high | Milestone: 8.4.1 Component: libraries/base | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s): Phab:D3723 Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by hvr): that's life. Oh, now that I read the type-sig more carefully, I see it changes from `BitSize a =>` to `FiniteBitSize a =>`; which makes me more neutral on this. I guess it's a sensible thing to do; the only downside is that we carry around redundancy (e.g. an alias for `finiteBiteSize`). -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12970#comment:10 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler