[Mid-discussion Summary] Proposal: add new Data.Bits.Bits(bitZero) method

[Henning Thielemann]

Am 24.02.2014 18:57, schrieb Brandon Allbery:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Henning Thielemann
> <schlepptop at henning-thielemann.de
> <mailto:schlepptop at henning-thielemann.de>> wrote:
>
>     Am 24.02.2014 18 <tel:24.02.2014%2018>:34, schrieb Twan van Laarhoven:
>
>         I agree with Edward that it would be better to reserve 'zero' for
>         something like an additive identity.
>
>
>     Why would you want to reserve Bits.zero for an additive zero? This
>     makes no sense.
>
>
> There is something vaguely smelly about specifically omitting the context
>
>  > it is an annoyingly common name to take for
>> such an often unqualified import.
>
> in the original message. Yes, we're quite aware you do not consider it
> legitimate. Distorting someone else's meaning to press your point is
> also not legitimate.

The phrase "reserve 'zero'" suggests that once we choose Bits.zero, the 
identifier 'zero' is reserved once and for all and cannot be used for 
something different anymore. That is, this phrasing removes the option 
of qualified imports from the scope and thus generates the wrong context.

Can someone please, please tell me why we must avoid qualified imports 
at all costs? Why is this option repeatedly ignored when just saying 
zeroBits (+1) or zero (-1)?