A reasonable suggestion, but I'm afraid I don't want to make structural changes to the Report. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Mark Tullsen [mailto:mtullsen@cse.ogi.edu] | Sent: 27 September 2001 20:35 | To: Simon Peyton-Jones | Cc: haskell@haskell.org | Subject: Re: Haskell report (August release) | | | Simon, | | Here's a minor quibble with the organization of the Report | and Library, not with the content. Sorry if this has been | brought up before. | | In section 4.3.3, Derived Instances, of the Report there is | | The only classes in the Prelude for which derived instances are | allowed are Eq, Ord, Enum, Bounded, Show, and Read, all mentioned in | Figure 5, ... Classes defined by the standard libraries may also be | derivable. | | In the introduction to the Library Report there is | | Classes defined in libraries may be derivable. This report includes | the derivation of such classes when appropriate. | | Now, unless I missed something, the only class in the Library | Report which is derivable is Ix. | | I would argue for bringing the Ix class into the Report for | these reasons | | * One does not have to search through the Library Report to | determine | what is derivable. | | * I think one would expect that the Libraries contain stuff | that could be | implemented in Haskell by the user. Until Haskell has | the ability | to allow for user-defined derivable classes, Ix cannot be | defined by the user. | | - Mark |