Proposal: Show and Read for Data.Ord.Down

[Ivan Lazar Miljenovic]

On 26 September 2013 18:03, David Luposchainsky
<dluposchainsky at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-09-26 06:50, Edward A Kmett wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I agree. Being able to look at some value "the dirty way" is an
> important use case of Show (be it as a return value or via trace), and I
> see no reason for any datatype to not support Show when it could.
>
> On Read I don't have an opinion because I usually try to avoid it :-)
>
> +1

+1 from me as well; furthermore, how about an "unDown :: Down a -> a"
record function or some such just to avoid the "\(Down x) -> x" usage
like how Krzysztof described?

-- 
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com