<font face="verdana,sans-serif">Yes. Sorry if I wasn't clear. That's what I intended.<br></font><div><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana,sans-serif">So would a patch adding this to hashable be accepted?</font></div>
<div><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana,sans-serif"> - Clark</font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Johan Tibell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com" target="_blank">johan.tibell@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Clark Gaebel <<a href="mailto:cgaebel@uwaterloo.ca">cgaebel@uwaterloo.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> @dag:<br>
><br>
> I would love for this to be merged into Data.Hashable, and I think it would make a lot of people's lives easier, and prevent them from writing bad hash functions accidentally.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>Couldn't we do it using GHC's default implementations based on<br>
signatures features, so we don't have to expose any new things in the<br>
API?<br>
<br>
We used that in unordered-containers like so:<br>
<br>
#ifdef GENERICS<br>
default parseRecord :: (Generic a, GFromRecord (Rep a)) => Record<br>
-> Parser a<br>
parseRecord r = to <$> gparseRecord r<br>
#endif<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-- Johan<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>