Hi Pedro That makes sense. I hit a mental block as to how to turn the generic representation back into the original type, but obviously if you know what you want to turn it into, the type-specific instance will be used.
Alan On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:58 AM, José Pedro Magalhães <[email protected]> wrote: > I have nothing against this. > > If the unboxed types are a problem for the automatic Generic derivation, a > manual instance could be written instead. > > > Cheers, > Pedro > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Alan & Kim Zimmerman <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> At the moment every part of the GHC AST derives instances of Data and >> Typeable. >> >> There are no instances of Generic. >> >> If I try to standalone derive these, the derivation eventually fails for >> >> deriving instance Generic (Name) >> >> because the constructors are not all in scope. >> >> So, does it make sense in GHC to at least derive Generic for the items >> that are opaque, and at most to do so for the whole AST. >> >> I know there were some concerns earlier about too many instances being >> derived, and its impact on compilation time and memory, so the minimal >> version may be best. >> >> This will allow the new generation libraries built around Generics to >> perform on GHC data structures too. >> >> Alan >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> >> >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
