Proposal for stand-alone deriving declarations?
bringert at cs.chalmers.se
Fri Oct 6 08:29:13 EDT 2006
Ketil Malde wrote:
> "Iavor Diatchki" <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com> writes:
>> A question about the syntax: would there be a problem if we made the
>> 'deriving' declaration look like an instance?
> And you might as well keep the 'instance' keyword when instantiating,
> even if the instance is derived? Seems more consistent to me
> ('deriving' feels more like a kind of parameter to 'data'
> declarations) and avoids introducing a new keyword, except in the
> context of instance declarations.
>> deriving Show SomeType
>> deriving Eq (AnotherType a)
> instance Show Sometype derived
> instance Eq (AnotherType a) where (==) = ...
One problem with this is that there is no context in the declaration, e.g.:
instance Eq (AnotherType a) derived
Although the generated instance does have one:
instance Eq a => Eq (AnotherType a) where
(depending on how a is used by the data constructors of AnotherType).
This goes back to the argument I was making earlier about the
differences between instance and deriving declarations.
More information about the Haskell-prime