Changes to Typeable

[Edward Kmett]

Well, I think there is a general consensus that the existing manual
instances for Typeable are more of a liability than a feature, and were a
necessary evil given the limitations of the previous system, so either
ignoring them or making them an error would make a lot of sense.

-Edward

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dominique Devriese <
dominique.devriese at cs.kuleuven.be> wrote:

> Small note while I happen to be reading the list:
>
> 2012/10/3 Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>:
> >    Plan A (easy): make GHC derive Typeable for everything, deprecate
> >             all uses of 'deriving Typeable'.  Small downside: some
> programs
> >             that are currently rejected will be accepted.
>
> Does this imply forbidding user-written instances of Typeable? If yes,
> then I guess some currently accepted programs would also be rejected
> (those with manual instances)?  If not, then wouldn't there be
> duplicate instances? Or would manual instances somehow take priority?
> Or be ignored?
>
> Dominique
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20121004/c196259c/attachment.htm>