Proposal: Add hasBitSize to Data.Bits.Bits

[Edward Kmett]

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 at 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 at 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 at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20120828/8bb8bf9c/attachment.htm>