
If you insist on adding Proxy to Data.Typeable, I'd like to strongly
suggest that we might want to look at promoting Data.Proxy from the tagged
package to base.
It offers a lot of instances that I currently rely upon in production code
and is already in use in a large portion of the ~42 reverse dependencies of
that package:
http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/tagged
Of course we could invert the dependencies from packages outside of base at
that time.
Exporting a crippled Proxy from Data.Typeable *without* those instances
will basically just ensure that I need to somehow support both, fight
needlessly with orphans and/or deal with qualified imports everywhere, and
it will break about 3 dozen modules of mine, and impact others.
All in all this makes me personally rather strongly opposed to the idea of
just randomly throwing a Proxy type in the module without ensuring we don't
lose existing functionality along the way.
-Edward
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:04 AM, José Pedro Magalhães
Data.Typeable no longer uses Proxy, yet I think it is convenient to have a Proxy datatype defined somewhere in base, and re-export it from Data.Typeable, as you might often often want to use it.
Cheers, Pedro
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Edward Kmett
wrote: +1 for finding a resolution. The idea of another Proxy floating around fills me with unease.
-Edward
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Ben Gamari
wrote: José Pedro Magalhães
writes: Yes, it's entirely unproblematic, and a good suggestion.
What happened to this proposal? As far as I can tell the new-typeable work is in (or rather, the branch has been deleted) yet Data.Typeable still seems to have its own Proxy. Given that there has been talk of a 7.8 release, this should probably be resolved quickly (although it's not clear to me from the massive thread where that discussion concluded).
Cheers,
- Ben
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries