Hi Malcolm,
In this case, I am counting on GHC's
{-# LANGUAGE GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}
feature to derive the instances for the classes I am including in the
deriving clause.
So perhaps portability is not a big issue here in any case.
I do think that
defObj(MyType)
looks a bit cleaner than
$(defObj "MyType")
so I am starting to lean back towards the CPP solution after all.
CPP is not always the best option, but perhaps it is in this case.
Kevin
On Sep 15, 10:31 am, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wall...@me.com> wrote:
> > That's what I had originally. However, some people have made critical
> > comments about CPP macros on this list and I thought that TH was
> > considered the better option.
>
> I was one of those people advising against the use of CPP macros.
> However, Template Haskell is ghc-only, and is unlikely ever to be
> implemented by any other Haskell compiler. Thus CPP, for all its
> faults, may be the better solution here, simply because it is portable.
>
> (I also note in passing that ghc's core libraries themselves use
> exactly this kind of CPP macro to generate lots of tedious boilerplate.)
>
> Regards,
> Malcolm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> haskell-c...@haskell.orghttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
