> On Jul 18, 2016, at 2:54 AM, Andres Loeh <m...@andres-loeh.de> wrote: > > There's nothing obviously wrong with option 3, but it seems relatively > verbose (I'd prefer Richard's syntax), and feels more ad-hoc. I don't > mind "builtin" to refer to the deriving mechanism, but again, I also > don't mind Richard's suggestion of using "bespoke". Another suggestion > would be to use "magic".
I thought about verbosity here, and it's not clear which one is more verbose. For example, I frequently define a new newtype and then wish to use GND to derive a whole host of instances. In this case (is it common?), `deriving (X, Y) deriving newtype (A,B,C,D,E,F)` is shorter than putting newtype on each class name. I suppose we could provide both options, but that may be one bridge too far. Richard _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
