deriving weirdness on newtypes

[Ketil Z. Malde]

Hal Daume III <hdaume@ISI.EDU> writes:

> So I love the fact that I can derive anything I want on
> newtypes.  However, there seem to be problems with it.  If I write:
> 
>     newtype Foo = Foo Int deriving (Show)
>     x = show (Foo 5)
> 
> Then x is "Foo 5"
> 
> However, if I do
> 
>     newtype Foo = Foo Int deriving (Num)
>     x = show (Foo 5)
> 
> Then the definition of 'x' claims that there is no Show instance of Foo.
> 
> However (this is where it gets weird).  If I do:
> 
>     newtype Foo = Foo Int deriving (Num)
>     x = show ((Foo 5) + 4)
> 
> then x is *valid* and has value "9", not "Foo 9".  

Did you check the type of x?  (I'd do it but I just found out that I
no longer have GHCi after my 5.04 upgrade)  Did you try different
compilers? 

I guess that there's an automatically derived instance of Show
(annoyingly being necessary for Num) after all, and that it is
constructed as (show.toInteger) or something like that?

> Moreoever, I can even do:
>     x = show ((5::Foo) + 4)

Same thing, isn't it?  5::Foo = fromInteger 5 :: Foo = Foo 5

> IMO, the correct value of "show (Foo 5)" no matter which of the above we
> have is "Foo 5".  I think the deriving mechanism should be changed in two
> ways.

I agree.

>   (1) If you derive X on a newtype and X is a subclass of Y,
>       you must have an instance of Y on that newtype.  This is 
>       how it works on data types, and I think makes sense.  

It could lead to rather long 'deriving' lists with a deep hierarchy,
but apart from that, yeah.

-kzm
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants