Hi, Am Dienstag, dem 29.06.2021 um 23:19 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021, at 22:38, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
Just to chime in now that I'm back in action: I'm reasonably happy with the final result here
With Richard in support, that leaves Simon PJ opposed to explicit imports [1]. So we have Richard opposed to implicit imports, Simon opposed to explicit imports, and the rest of us (I believe) amenable to either.
a different way to phrase that question might be: Do we want these defaulting declarations to behave just exactly like named things, or exactly like typeclass instances, or do we afford a new class with it’s own exporting/importing behavior. Is that a fair assessment? So, it doesn't really work like named things, as you don’t refer to them in code. But also the same design constraints as for type class instances applies, because there is no coherence requirement (which, unless I am mistaken, is the reason why we need no way to _not_ import an instance). That implies to me that this feature should be designed without too much allusion to existing export/import behavior, and rather basing it on what makes the feature most useful. (sorry, this mail doesn’t get more concrete that this.) Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/