It could, yes. Actually, using DefaultSignatures you can probably use SYB
for defining classes with generic default methods, by adding Data and
Typeable constraints instead of Generic.
Cheers,
Pedro
2012/3/12 Yves Parès
> Thanks for the clarification.
> But could not class Data have been used
Thanks for the clarification.
But could not class Data have been used for generic Deriving of classes? I
imagine it would have been harder, but I fail to see if would have been
possible...
Le 12 mars 2012 16:58, José Pedro Magalhães a écrit :
> Hi Yves,
>
> GHC.Generics [1] and SYB [2] are two r
Hi Yves,
GHC.Generics [1] and SYB [2] are two rather different approaches to generic
programming. There are things that can be done in one but not in the other,
and there are things that are easier on one rather than the other. For
instance, SYB tends to be very useful for large AST transformation
I'd have a question concerning GHC.Generics: how does it relate to SYB's
Data.Generics?
Is it intended to replace it or complete it?
In other words: does class Data.Generics.Data class do things that class
GHC.Generics.Generic can't do?
Le 12 mars 2012 04:27, Reiner Pope a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
>
Hi Reiner,
It is indeed not strictly necessary to define such helper classes for kind
* generic functions. You do need them for kind * -> * functions, though.
Also, I think they should always be used because they help keep things
separate. If we use an implementation of generics with DataKinds [1]
Hi all,
I've been playing with GHC's new generics features (see
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/generic-programming.html).
All the documentation I've seen suggests creating a "helper class" -- for
instance, the GSerialize class in the above link -- on which one defines
