Hi Malcolm,
In this case, I am counting on GHC's
{-# LANGUAGE GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving #-}
feature to derive the instances for the classes I am including in the
deriving clause.
So perhaps portability is not a big issue here in any case.
I do think that
defObj(MyType)
looks a bit cleaner than
$(defObj "MyType")
so I am starting to lean back towards the CPP solution after all.
CPP is not always the best option, but perhaps it is in this case.
Kevin
On Sep 15, 10:31 am, Malcolm Wallace
That's what I had originally. However, some people have made critical comments about CPP macros on this list and I thought that TH was considered the better option.
I was one of those people advising against the use of CPP macros. However, Template Haskell is ghc-only, and is unlikely ever to be implemented by any other Haskell compiler. Thus CPP, for all its faults, may be the better solution here, simply because it is portable.
(I also note in passing that ghc's core libraries themselves use exactly this kind of CPP macro to generate lots of tedious boilerplate.)
Regards, Malcolm
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-C...@haskell.orghttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe