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