Proposal: Show and Read for Data.Ord.Down

[Edward A Kmett]

I strongly favor creating instances like this.

Not having them just makes the world more painful to debug code to make a normative point and leads to greater code fragmentation when someone else has another stance.

-Edward

> On Sep 25, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Am Mittwoch, den 25.09.2013, 15:17 +0200 schrieb Krzysztof Gogolewski:
>> I propose to add derived Show and Read instances to Data.Ord.Down.
>> This should be uncontroversial. Any thoughts?
> 
> I could imagine that such instances were intentionally not put there
> because the author of Down has intended it to be used only
> “temporarily”, e.g.
>        map (\(Down x) -> x) . sort . map Down
> so the absence of the instances encourage that usage pattern.
> 
> Not sure though if base should be encouraging certain usage patterns.
> Also, Show is useful for debugging.
> 
> A mildly positive *shrug* from me.
> 
> Greetings
> Joachim
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
>  mail at joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>  Jabber: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de  • GPG-Key: 0x4743206C
>  Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries