For derived instances I'm getting decls that aren't allowed if I try to put them explicitly. They're rejected as overlapping, and in no substitution ordering.

import Hugs.Trex

type UserId = Int type EventId = Int

data Message = SendChat (Rec ( message :: String, user :: UserId )) | Signup (Rec ( eventId :: EventId, user :: UserId )) deriving (Eq)

There's an `instance Eq Message` -- fine.

From Hugs.Trex I get (and these are fine)

instance EqRecRow a => Eq (Rec a) -- pass through to a specialised class instance EqRecRow EmptyRow

These are generated by the `deriving`; note they're not specialised to the field's type, nor for rows with combinations of labels:

instance (Eq a, b\eventId, EqRecRow b) => EqRecRow (eventId :: a | b) instance (Eq a, b\user, EqRecRow b) => EqRecRow (user :: a | b) instance (Eq a, b\message, EqRecRow b) => EqRecRow (message :: a | b)

Not specialising and not combining labels makes sense: then no clash if I also had:

data Probe a b c = MkProbe (Rec (user :: a, message :: b, eventId :: c)) deriving (Eq)

But those generated instances for `EqRecRow` overlap in no substitution ordering -- as Hugs tells me if I try to declare them explicitly. How does a wanted for `(MkProbe x) == (MkProbe y)` resolve to the wanted instances? There's no preference ordering -- or is there? Precisely because it's Trex where records are considered isomorphic up to permutation of labels; and because each instance has an `EqRecRow b` constraint for the rest of the row; it doesn't matter how Hugs resolves the wanted to the instances: it'll get to the same answer. But I don't see how this fits with Hugs usual approach for overlaps. AntC