Simon Marlow
So, just to make sure I've followed, the conclusion is that we don't want to modify the deepseq package because that would take it outside Haskell 98, and we don't want to have a conditional API (quite rightly). There's no disadvantage to having the generic functionality in a separate package, right?
Yeah, that sums it up about right (the way I perceived the discussion) Originally, it seemed a bit overkill to me to create a separate package containing just a few lines of codes also, I thought that the current default (pure H98/H2010) implementation for rnf provided by the NFData type-class, which is | class NFData a where | rnf :: a -> () | rnf a = a `seq` () could be changed to make use of the DefaultSignature extension at some point in the future (which'd defintely leave the H98/H2010 featureset and/or lead to a conditional API), for which having the `genericsRnf` helper accessible to the `deepseq` package would be a requirement However, the convenience of being able to write | instance NFData Foo instead of the more verbose | instance NFData Foo where rnf = genericsRnf isn't such a big deal either... it would have just been a nice use-case for the DefaultSignature extension IMHO :-) cheers, hvr