On 27 October 2010 18:39, Stephen Tetley <[email protected]> wrote: > Having a Pretty class plus primitive printers int, bool is an > advantage. For ints, bools, ... code tends to look neater if you use > int or bool rather than pretty. Plus for ints and others you tend to > need things like hex printers anyway, so one size via a type class > doesn't fit all.
Definitely agreed. > As for the class - if I have a reasonably sized > syntax tree I'd rather just do > >> pretty a > > ... than formulate a naming scheme like: > >> prettyExpr a What do you mean by "prettyExpr"? My main objection to having a Pretty type class is that when having a "reasonably sized syntax tree", aren't you likely to want to have your own custom printing variants rather than the ones in the pre-defined class? As such, does having a default class make sense if it isn't used? That said, 9 packages [1] do use prettyclass [2]... out of the 168 packages [3] that use pretty itself [4] (some of which implement their own Pretty class). [1]: http://bifunctor.homelinux.net/~roel/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/revdeps/prettyclass-1.0.0.0#direct [2]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/prettyclass [3]: http://bifunctor.homelinux.net/~roel/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/revdeps/pretty-1.0.1.1#direct [4]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/pretty -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic [email protected] IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
