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

[Twan van Laarhoven]

I agree with Edward that it would be better to reserve 'zero' for something like 
an additive identity.

I'll withdraw my +1 for the name `zero`, in favor of +1 for `zeroBits`.


Twan

On 22/02/14 16:48, Edward Kmett wrote:
> I am notably strongly against taking 'zero' as it is much more appropriately
> used by more algebraic classes, and it is an annoyingly common name to take for
> such an often unqualified import.
>
> -Edward
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr at gnu.org
> <mailto:hvr at gnu.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hello *,
>
>     Here's a mid-discussion summary of the proposal
>
>      >> Introduce a new class method
>      >>
>      >>   class Bits a where
>      >>       ...
>      >>       -- | Value with all bits cleared
>      >>       <0-value-method> :: a
>      >>       ...
>      >>
>      >> modulo naming of '<0-value-method>'
>
>     from my point of view:
>
>       - The idea came up already in 2011 when Num-superclass was to be removed
>     from Bits
>         (but discussion derailed)
>
>       - So far general consensus (i.e. no "-1"s afaics) it's desired to have
>         an all-bits-clear value introducing method in 'Bits'
>
>       - Use "clearBit (bit 0) 0" as default implementation for smooth upgrade-path
>
>       - Nameing for <0-value-method> boils down to two candidates:
>
>          a) 'Data.Bits.zero'
>
>              - based on the idea tha 'Data.Bits' ought to be imported
>                qualified (or with explicit import-list) anyway
>                (-> thus following PVP practice)
>
>              - many existing Data.Bits.Bits methods such as 'rotate',
>                'complement', 'popCount', 'xor', or 'shift' don't have
>                the name 'bit' in it (and those few that have, operate
>                on single bits)
>
>              - supporters (in no particular order):
>
>                 - ARJANEN Loïc Jean David
>                 - Henning Thielemann
>                 - Herbert Valerio Riedel (+0.99)
>                 - Twan van Laarhoven
>
>          b) 'Data.Bits.zeroBits'
>
>              - more verbose name reduces risk of namespace conflicts with
>     unqualified imports
>
>              - supporters (in no particular order):
>
>                 - Edward Kmett
>                 - Eric Mertens
>                 - Herbert Valerio Riedel
>                 - Twan van Laarhoven
>                 - (maybe?) ARJANEN Loïc Jean David
>
>
>          So far there doesn't seem to be a very clear preference for
>          'zeroBits' over 'zero'. It might help, if those how expressed some
>          kind of support for both variants could clarify if their preference
>          has any bias towards 'zeroBits' or 'zero'.
>
>
>     Cheers,
>         hvr
>     _______________________________________________
>     Libraries mailing list
>     Libraries at haskell.org <mailto:Libraries at haskell.org>
>     http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>