<div dir="ltr">Plan A does seem better.<div><br></div><div>Speaking of making changes to Typeable, is there a chance of connecting/converting between Data.Typeable.TypeRep and Language.Haskell.TH.Type?<br><br>Oren Ben-Kiki<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Edward Kmett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ekmett@gmail.com" target="_blank">ekmett@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'm definitely in favor of Plan A.<div><br></div><div>-Edward<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com" target="_blank">simonpj@microsoft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">* If we do make Typeable instances by default, there are two paths<br>
Plan A (easy): make GHC derive Typeable for everything, deprecate<br>
all uses of 'deriving Typeable'. Small downside: some programs<br>
that are currently rejected will be accepted.<br>
<br>
Plan B (tiresome): have AutoDeriveTypable as an extension. That<br>
means maintaining the massive instance table.<br>
<br>
Personally I vote for Plan A. It's easier and more efficient to implement,<br>
and the upside of Plan B is modest in the extreme.<br></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>