Proposal: Remove Num superclass of Bits

[Judah Jacobson]

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 <ekmett at gmail.com> 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 <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
> 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 at joachim-breitner.de  |  nomeata at debian.org  |  GPG: 0x4743206C
>>  xmpp: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> 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
>
>