Thanks for doing this. Is this the syntax we settled on? I remember we discussed it at some length
S | -----Original Message----- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of | Bjorn Bringert | Sent: 05 October 2006 09:05 | To: haskell-prime@haskell.org | Subject: Proposal for stand-alone deriving declarations? | | On http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/ | DerivedInstances it says: | | "- There is no way to derive an instance of a class for a data type | that is defined elsewhere (in another module)." | | Though there is no proposal to fix this. Would such a proposal be | appropriate for Haskell'? | | | If so, I propose to add a top-level declaration on the form: | | 'deriving' qtycls 'for' qtycon | | which produces the same instance as a deriving clause in the | declaration of the datatype or newtype would. | | | I have recently (thanks to the GHC Hackathon) implemented this in GHC. | | /Björn | | _______________________________________________ | Haskell-prime mailing list | Haskell-prime@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime