Proposal: Show and Read for Data.Ord.Down
Edward A Kmett
ekmett at gmail.com
Thu Sep 26 06:50:15 CEST 2013
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.
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> 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.
> 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
More information about the Libraries