Ben, > I think it would be a great idea. That being said, given that it's not > be approved yet, I'm in no position to require it. Ryan, I'll leave this > call up to you. If you would like to write up a proposal using the > template in the repository then by all means let's give it a try. > If not, then no worries; we can continue here.
I hadn't thought of using ghc-proposals for this, and since it's still in a nascent state, I'll opt to continue using the GHC devs mailing list for this dicussion. Alexey, > I can't see how this doesn't require changes to Template Haskell. You are correct, I got my wires crossed when trying to recall the details. I think what I (sloppily) remembered was that in an earlier revision of https://phabricator.haskell.org/D2280, I had implemented a pragma-based approach that didn't require a language extension. But I now consider that a mistake, so I've introduced the -XDerivingStrategies extension, which should be required regardless of what syntax we decide to adopt. Ryan S. On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> wrote: > Oleg Grenrus <oleg.gren...@iki.fi> writes: > >> Should we test drive https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals >> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> on this proposal? >> > I think it would be a great idea. That being said, given that it's not > be approved yet, I'm in no position to require it. Ryan, I'll leave this > call up to you. If you would like to write up a proposal using the > template in the repository then by all means let's give it a try. > If not, then no worries; we can continue here. > > Cheers, > > - Ben > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
