The benefit is that it makes it clear that the notion of Bits and
FiniteBits are related and prevents you from winding up with signatures
that look like (Bits b, FiniteBits b) everywhere.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel
On 2013-09-18 at 13:56:22 +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
[...]
As it stands, the current implementation state is at
http://git.haskell.org/packages/base.git/commitdiff/cddc9024e67a6d4c01bb1908...
Now I have two questions:
1.) Currently, bitSizeMaybe and bitSize have no default implementation defined. Shall we define mutually recursive default implementations for these two functions to help smooth the transition?
e.g. in the style (just an example, not an actual proposal) of:
bitSize = fromJust . bitSizeMaybe
bitSizeMaybe = Just . bitSize
2.) As it's probably not to late to easily fix any bikeshedding/naming issues: Shall the naming remain as implemented?
PS:
3.) What's the benefit of having the super-class constraint on
class Bits b => FiniteBits b where finiteBitSize :: b -> Int
? _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries