Re: Proposal: Remove Num superclass of Bits

One other argument against adding "one" and "zero" to the Bits class: it would be impossible to write code that works with both the old and new libraries without using something like CPP. The small convenience when writing class instances doesn't seem worth the loss of backwards compatibility. Best, -Judah On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Edward Kmett wrote:

I have to admit this seems to be the most sensible solution, and avoids stealing names that are more appropriate for numeric instances anyways. -Edward

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

...

Hi,

Am Samstag, den 15.10.2011, 17:41 -0700 schrieb John Meacham:

...

I would just remove the bit and testBit defalut instances, they seem like reasonable primitives to be required for an instance.

I agree. Bits is certainly not something that a Haskell Beginner would have to implement every day, but is more likely a task that requires lots of thought and well-written code anyway. Having to implement these two functions as well is not a large burden there.

Greetings, Joachim

-- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner  mail@joachim-breitner.de  |  nomeata@debian.org  |  GPG: 0x4743206C  xmpp: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

_______________________________________________ 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