Proposal: add conversion functions to Data.Fixed.
ekmett at gmail.com
Mon Dec 3 16:07:32 CET 2012
+1 to splitting off Fixed as well.
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Ashley Yakeley <ashley at semantic.org> wrote:
> On 02/12/12 01:25, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
>> Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> writes:
>> 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. =(
>> Fwiw, I've sometimes wanted to have 'Int' based fixed-precision
>> arithmetic, and the current Data.Fixed allows only for "big-num" based
>> fixed-precision types.
>> Just a thought: Why does Data.Fixed have to be in 'base' anyway if the
>> interface doesn't seem to be agreed upon by everyone? Can't we split it
>> off into a separate package where it can more easily evolve into a
>> richer API?
> +1 to both of these ideas.
> -- Ashley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries