In a couple days it will be the two week mark and I'll be posting a summary of this conversation on the ticket. At this point I don't see any disagreement, just questions regarding the completeness of the patch (so I included many more functions from Numeric). The final type signatures are: efloat :: (RealFloat a) => Maybe Int -> a -> Doc ffloat :: (RealFloat a) => Maybe Int -> a -> Doc gfloat :: (RealFloat a) => Maybe Int -> a -> Doc hex :: (Integral a) => a -> Doc hexPad :: (Integral a) => a -> Int -> Doc intAtBase :: (Integral a) => a -> (Int -> Char) -> a -> Doc intAtBasePad :: (Integral a) => a -> (Int -> Char) -> a -> Int -> Doc oct :: (Integral a) => a -> Doc octPad :: (Integral a) => Maybe Int -> a -> Int -> Doc Which follows the Numeric module pretty close (except the *Pad functions, which are obvious devivations). Thomas On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Thomas DuBuisson <thomas.dubuisson@gmail.com> wrote:
Padding floats could be touchy - perhaps it should be a separate patch by someone who would use such a feature and know what they want.
Thoughts?
Presumably it would be uncontroversial for the float ones to behave the same as the ones from the existing Numeric module.
Done, the new prettyNumeric.patch is with the ticket including hex, oct, ffloat, efloat, gfloat, signed, intByBase. Also, padded versions of hex, oct, intByBase.
Thomas