Proposal for stand-alone deriving declarations?

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

Thanks for doing this.  

Is this the syntax we settled on?  I remember we discussed it at some length

S

| -----Original Message-----
| From: haskell-prime-bounces at haskell.org [mailto:haskell-prime-bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of
| Bjorn Bringert
| Sent: 05 October 2006 09:05
| To: haskell-prime at 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 at haskell.org
| http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime