Re: Proposal: Adding generics-based rnf-helper to `deepseq`

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:13 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:

I'm agnostic on the issue of including genericRnf rather than keeping the packages separate; but if it is included, I definitely think it ought to be put in a separate module. Having the API of a module depend on CPP/flags/... is a terrible maintenance issue--- for client code, I mean. But just having a module be absent/present makes the divide clear, and makes it a lot easier to work with.

I believe that Cabal is expressly designed so that exposed-modules cannot change based on configuration of things. Can anyone suggest a clear disadvantage for having the generics stuff remain in a separate package? It seems like the least problematic solution to me so far.