On 02/04/2016 02:19 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: > Hi, > > if you do generic programming these days, you can use DeriveAnyClass to > write code like the following (where Serializable is a class with a > generic default implementation): > >> data Tree a = Leaf | Branch (Tree a) a (Tree a) >> deriving (Generic, Serializable) > > It would be great, if you could just write the following instead: > >> data Tree a = Leaf | Branch (Tree a) a (Tree a) deriving Serializable > > This would correspond exactly to what you do when using standard Haskell > deriving. It could be made possible by letting the compiler instantiate > the Generic class automatically every time an algebraic data type is > declared. A potential downside of this would be that programmers would > not be able to define non-standard instances of Generics, but I actually > cannot see that this is very useful anyhow. > > Any comments?
GHC.Generics already have an unfair advantage over the alternative (and arguably, superior) libraries, such as generics-sop. I wouldn't want to give it even more special treatment than it receives right now. Roman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
