On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:56:01 +0100 (BST), MR K P SCHUPKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * I'm not at all keen on making '..deriving( Foo )' mean > > $(derive 'Foo) or something like that. Just make the TH > > call yourself! > > The current situation is that the code that generates the derived > instances is hard coded into the compiler (TcDeriv.hs) is it not > better to allow the derived instances to be specified in Haskell > - using template-haskell seems to be the easiest (least new > features/least effort/max results) method of doing this. What > I am suggesting is that the current derivations for Typeable > (etc) are replaced by more readable template-haskell code, that > can be user extended... Surely it is better to have the deriving > method exposed rather than hidden away in the compiler.
But surely this is orthogonal to the discussion at hand? I wouldn't mind being able to make my own classes derivable by writing a chunk of TH, but that's not really related to "remote deriving" but a wishlist item of its own. /Martin _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
