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

[Gershom Bazerman]

The issue isn't about qualified or unqualified names at all. It is about 
names which express intent clearly and evocatively, and names which are 
unacceptably ambiguous.

As such, I propose

zero --> whereDidTheBitsGo

and conversely,

allBits --> iHaveAllTheBits

It seems to me that these are expressive names with unmistakable meanings.

-G

On 2/24/14, 5:00 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
> Note: at least for Integer, allBits / oneBits is also definable, 
> despite note being Finite
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li 
> <mailto:igloo at earth.li>> wrote:
>
>     On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 02:51:24PM -0500, Anthony Cowley wrote:
>     > I am -1 on the name zero. I don't think importing Data.Bits
>     unqualified is uncommon at all, and zero is prime naming real
>     estate. I am +0.5 on the addition overall, as most uses of Bits
>     are with types that also have Num instances.
>
>     For those that don't have a Num instance, "zero" may not make as much
>     sense.
>
>     Perhaps something like noBits would be better. And FiniteBits may also
>     want an allBits?
>
>
>     Thanks
>     Ian
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Libraries mailing list
>     Libraries at haskell.org <mailto:Libraries at haskell.org>
>     http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140225/d847d720/attachment.html>