Request for feedback: deriving strategies syntax

[Ryan Scott]

Ben,

> I think it would be a great idea. That being said, given that it's not
> be approved yet, I'm in no position to require it. Ryan, I'll leave this
> call up to you. If you would like to write up a proposal using the
> template in the repository then by all means let's give it a try.
> If not, then no worries; we can continue here.

I hadn't thought of using ghc-proposals for this, and since it's still
in a nascent state, I'll opt to continue using the GHC devs mailing
list for this dicussion.


Alexey,

> I can't see how this doesn't require changes to Template Haskell.

You are correct, I got my wires crossed when trying to recall the
details. I think what I (sloppily) remembered was that in an earlier
revision of https://phabricator.haskell.org/D2280, I had implemented a
pragma-based approach that didn't require a language extension. But I
now consider that a mistake, so I've introduced the
-XDerivingStrategies extension, which should be required regardless of
what syntax we decide to adopt.

Ryan S.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Ben Gamari <ben at smart-cactus.org> wrote:
> Oleg Grenrus <oleg.grenrus at iki.fi> writes:
>
>> Should we test drive https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals
>> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> on this proposal?
>>
> I think it would be a great idea. That being said, given that it's not
> be approved yet, I'm in no position to require it. Ryan, I'll leave this
> call up to you. If you would like to write up a proposal using the
> template in the repository then by all means let's give it a try.
> If not, then no worries; we can continue here.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
>