Proposal for stand-alone deriving declarations?

[Björn Bringert]

Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | What is not so nice is that you take a new keyword ('for'), which is
> | quite likely to have been used as a variable name in existing code.
> (Or
> | does it work out to use one of the 'special' names here?)
> 
> The latter is what Bjorn has done.  That is, 'for' is only special in
> this one context.  You can use it freely otherwise.  As I understand it
> anyway.

Yes. There is even a "for" function somewhere in the libraries (or was 
it the testsuite, can't remeber), which tripped up one of my early 
versions, before I had remembered to make "for" as a special ID in the 
parser.

> | I think it would be useful to write the proposal in complete detail up
> | on the Haskell' wiki.
> 
> Yes please.  Bjorn?  (It may just be a qn of transcribing the user
> manual stuff you have written.)

Sure. It seems that I have to be on the committee to write to the Wiki. 
Can I join it?

/Björn