10 Aug
2017
10 Aug
'17
10:59 a.m.
Personally, I'd be more inclined towards latter approach (in https://phabricator.haskell.org/D3837). After all, one of the key properties of (==) (for which the Haddocks even make a special note) is that it does not attempt to provide an instance that works for every possible kind. Indeed, as you've discovered, there are cases when it doesn't make sense to use DefaultEq, such as for (). I'll tentatively give my support for D3837, although I'd be curious to hear what Richard has to say about this (since I'm reasonably confident he gave (==) its current implementation). Ryan S.