I think it would be better to just define a new typeclass with some added constraints/documentation to clarify what the defaults mean in hasql. It may end up being a copy of the Default class but I'd still prefer that.

Cheers,
Adam


On Thu, 10 May 2018 at 19:08 Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:


> On May 10, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Adam Bergmark <adam@bergmark.nl> wrote:
>
> I agree that you should avoid Data.Default, but there is still value in keeping the package up to date since it is well-used. I would appreciate it being actively maintained.
>
> I would however find it in bad taste to do a take over that immediately marks the package as deprecated...

I use Hasql, and Hasql makes extensive use of Default to implement default
encoders for various data types and tuples thereof.  Is there a better design
that the author of Hasql should be using instead?

   https://hackage.haskell.org/package/hasql-1.1.1/docs/Hasql-Encoders.html#t:Value

--
        Viktor.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.