John Hughes wrote:
> deriving (Eq Foo, Ord Foo)
>
> instead of
>
> deriving (Eq, Ord) for Foo
>
> I find the former syntax clearer and more readable, actually.
>
> John
I'll implement this syntax instead and then write up a Haskell' proposal.
I am sure that it was already argued at great length, but I think it is wrong to start the declaration with "deriving." I believe that "derive instance" fits much better into the language. I understand the desire to avoid adding new keywords but I think that something along the lines of what was done for "for" could be done here for "derive."
Regards,
Brian