RFC: Can DefaultSignature compile-time conditional APIs be regarded "benign"?

[Johan Tibell]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11 November 2012 15:34, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr at gnu.org> wrote:
> > I'd argue that there is no harm in allowing this kind of compile-time
> > conditional APIs using the DefaultSignature language extension.
>
> I agree.
>
> There's one minor issue: Say some client does not intend to rely on
> DefaultSignatures but forgets to write a definition for the method. He
> will then not get a "No explicit method or default declaration"
> warning. However, in this case I think the benefits outweigh this
> disadvantage.
>
> FWIW I prefer that deepseq and hashable both use the DefaultSignatures
> extension to provide generic default definitions.
>

hashable won't be using DefaultSignatures. See the discussion here:

https://github.com/tibbe/hashable/pull/33
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20121111/f470c0e7/attachment.htm>