On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Edward Kmett <
ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that right now bitSize is deliberately excluded from looking
> at its argument to determine the number of bits in it. You _really_ want a
> different combinator. Almost every user of bitSize is passing it undefined,
> not a real value.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Ben Millwood <
haskell@benmachine.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't it be possible to have an instance Bits ByteString, or Vector
>> Bool or something, where the bitsize would depend on the bytestring
>> length, and hence wouldn't be fixed?
>>
>> (although if we're catering for that sort of use, the docs will need
>> to be changed)
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Henning Thielemann
>> <
lemming@henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 07:49:49PM -0400, Edward Kmett wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> deprecate, but not remove bitSize this iteration, and make a separate
>> >>> class FiniteBits for things with a finite, fixed number of bits:
>> >>>
>> >>>> class Bits b => FiniteBits b where
>> >>>> finiteBitSize :: b -> Int
>> >>>> finiteBitSize = bitSize
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Bit size is always finite in strict data types, isn't it? I suggest a
>> > name
>> > containing "Fixed".
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>