On 18-03-17 16:13:52, Ben Gamari wrote: > > > On March 18, 2017 9:03:48 AM EDT, Tom Sydney Kerckhove > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Snip. > > > >My questions for you: > > > >- Is there a reason that there are no derived 'Show' instances for most > > types? > > As Richard mentioned, we don't derive Show due to code size and compilation > time concerns.
Okay. > Show in particular is rather expensive to derive and seeing as we already > have Outputable I don't it would make sense to derive it by default. Show and Outputable have very different goals though. > I would really like to avoid introducing more CPP into the code base for this > particular problem. Fair enough. > One alternative which will work in many cases is to simply derive Show > yourself using StandaloneDeriving. Does this help? That doesn't work if some type doesn't have the constructors exposed. I tried this already, and it would be a good solution if all constructors were exposed, ... > Cheers, > > - Ben > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Tom Sydney Kerckhove
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
