Re: [Mid-discussion Summary] Proposal: add new Data.Bits.Bits(bitZero) method

The issue isn't about qualified or unqualified names at all. It is about names which express intent clearly and evocatively, and names which are unacceptably ambiguous. As such, I propose zero --> whereDidTheBitsGo and conversely, allBits --> iHaveAllTheBits It seems to me that these are expressive names with unmistakable meanings. -G On 2/24/14, 5:00 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:

Note: at least for Integer, allBits / oneBits is also definable, despite note being Finite

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Ian Lynagh mailto:igloo@earth.li> wrote:

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 02:51:24PM -0500, Anthony Cowley wrote: > I am -1 on the name zero. I don't think importing Data.Bits unqualified is uncommon at all, and zero is prime naming real estate. I am +0.5 on the addition overall, as most uses of Bits are with types that also have Num instances.

For those that don't have a Num instance, "zero" may not make as much sense.

Perhaps something like noBits would be better. And FiniteBits may also want an allBits?

Thanks Ian

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org mailto:Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries