Someone at work just asked me about the inflexibility of the derived Read instances for records -- specifically that they require fields to be given in the same order as in the type definition and that fields cannot be omitted. I hadn't been aware of these restrictions.<br>
<br>A few questions:<br><br>* Are there known work-arounds?<br>* Is it particularly difficult to synthesize more flexible Read instances?<br>* Do people just not mind the restrictions?<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>-- Conal<br>