Re: RFC: Can DefaultSignature compile-time conditional APIs be regarded "benign"?

Johan Tibell writes:

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Bas van Dijk wrote:

...

On 11 November 2012 15:34, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:

...

I'd argue that there is no harm in allowing this kind of compile-time conditional APIs using the DefaultSignature language extension.

I agree.

There's one minor issue: Say some client does not intend to rely on DefaultSignatures but forgets to write a definition for the method. He will then not get a "No explicit method or default declaration" warning. However, in this case I think the benefits outweigh this disadvantage.

FWIW I prefer that deepseq and hashable both use the DefaultSignatures extension to provide generic default definitions.

hashable won't be using DefaultSignatures. See the discussion here:

https://github.com/tibbe/hashable/pull/33

Update: However, starting with hashable-1.2.0.0 DefaultSignatures are being used notwithstanding :-) cheers, hvr