Thanks for suggesting the Alexis, I've been thinking about exactly the same thing, albeit for other generics libraries. It would be great to have this in GHC.Generics. I'm a +1.
I haven't really thought it out, but I wonder if
newtype GenericallyUsing a c
Also works, paving the way for other generic classes. This would let you write
data Foo = Bar X | Baz Y Z
deriving C via Foo `GenericallyUsing` GHC.Generics.Generic
But you could also swap in SOP. This does mean instances of GenericallyUsing would probably need Flexible instances though, and it does complicate things.
Just throwing that out there!
Ollie
That is an absolutely *beautiful* idea. I love it to pieces. I'm not fussy about the name, but Generically does have a nice ring to it.
Hi all,
In recent years, the DefaultSignatures extension has seen popular use as a mechanism for providing derived typeclass instances via GHC.Generics. Although undeniably useful, I have always felt it is somewhat ugly: it is mutually exclusive with other, non-Generic default method implementations, and it can only be used for one Generic deriving mechanism, so implementations must choose between GHC.Generics and Data.Data.
Fortunately, with the advent of DerivingVia, there is a better way: simply attach generic instances to a separate newtype, defined like
newtype Generically a = Generically { unGenerically :: a }
instance Generic a => C (Generically a) where
...
then derive instances using DerivingVia as follows:
data Foo = Bar X | Baz Y Z
deriving C via Generically Foo
The `Generically` name already exists for this purpose in the `generic-data` package, making it a good candidate name for a newtype in GHC.Generics (`generic-data` could simply re-export the type with suitably recent versions of `base`). An alternate name would be the more traditional `WrappedGeneric`. I don’t have much of a preference either way, but I do think the `Generically` name is cute, especially when used with DerivingVia.
I believe this type should be in `base` because it is
(1) clearly generally useful in the same way that similar newtypes in `base` like `WrappedMonad` are (and probably even more so),
(2) extremely lightweight in terms of additional API complexity (it’s just a newtype),
(3) isn’t worth depending on a separate package for, encouraging a proliferation of (possibly name-conflicting) newtypes in individual packages if it isn’t in `base`, and
(4) is an opportunity to add instances based on `Generic` for classes already in `base`.
Overall, it’s something that would feel right at home in GHC.Generics to me.
As a final note, whichever name people prefer, it would of course make sense to provide an analogous `Generically1` or `WrappedGeneric1` type for `Generic1` (as `generic-data` does as well).
Alexis
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries