Re: Proposal: Show and Read for Data.Ord.Down

I strongly favor creating instances like this. Not having them just makes the world more painful to debug code to make a normative point and leads to greater code fragmentation when someone else has another stance. -Edward

On Sep 25, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Hi,

Am Mittwoch, den 25.09.2013, 15:17 +0200 schrieb Krzysztof Gogolewski:

...

I propose to add derived Show and Read instances to Data.Ord.Down. This should be uncontroversial. Any thoughts?

I could imagine that such instances were intentionally not put there because the author of Down has intended it to be used only “temporarily”, e.g. map (\(Down x) -> x) . sort . map Down so the absence of the instances encourage that usage pattern.

Not sure though if base should be encouraging certain usage patterns. Also, Show is useful for debugging.

A mildly positive *shrug* from me.

Greetings Joachim

-- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0x4743206C Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries