Proposal: add conversion functions to Data.Fixed.

Edward Kmett ekmett at
Sun Dec 2 03:14:28 CET 2012

To be frank, I would just rather have access to the constructor to Fixed.

It honestly strikes me as silly to have to pay for a division and/or
multiplication every time I want to access one.

There in an ideological distinction being maintained here about the one
true usage pattern that has forced me to reimplement Data.Fixed in my own
code to avoid the overhead. =(

You can bury it in an Internal module or something and load it with caveats
about how it is a bad idea to use and how you reserve the right to change
it some day, but without it Data.Fixed remains almost useless to me.

The Binary instance can trivially be implemented on top of that, as we
shoudn't be encoding type (precision) information in the Binary data stream.


On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Ashley Yakeley <ashley at> wrote:

> On 01/12/12 12:11, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>> Jeff Shaw wrote:
>>         In my work I've run into an annoyance: Data.Fixed.Fixed does not
>>         have a
>>         Binary instance in the binary package.
>> Ashley Yakeley wrote:
>>     Just to be clear, this is a modification of binary, not Data.Fixed
>>     in base, is that correct?
>> Hmm, I had understood just the opposite:
>> that the proposal was to add fromFixed/toFixed
>> to Data.Fixed, motivated by the difficulty of things
>> like writing a Binary instance.
> Oh yes, you're right. But I don't think it's necessary.
> -- Ashley
> ______________________________**_________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list