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 <jpm@cs.uu.nl> wrote:

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 <ekmett@gmail.com> 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 <bgamari.foss@gmail.com> wrote:

José Pedro Magalhães <jpm@cs.uu.nl> 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