"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > The FFI Addendum actually doesn't commit to which operations > > are in the class. It just says defines all these ops to > > have a context `Bits a', which is definitely the case. In > > other words, you proposed implementation is valid by the > > spec and your argument for it makes sense to me. > > The spec really ought to say what the member functions of the class are, > if we expect people to be able to define their own instances of Bits, > and I don't see why we shouldn't allow that.
True. > I think Malcolm's proposed change looks reasonable, although there was > probably a reason why these functions weren't made class members in the > first place. Alastair: it was your design originally I believe, any > thoughts? I think it would be a small optimisation in GHC too, at least > for shifts by non-constant amounts. I applied Malcolm's change now. Manuel _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
