Type classes: Omit explicit instance name #417
Conversation
The compiler change to make instance names optional was introduced in v0.14.2: https://github.com/purescript/purescript/releases/tag/v0.14.2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. However, I'm wondering if we should state that instance names are optional and provide an example.
AFAIK, removing instance names altogether hasn't been discussed and they're still used in core/contrib/web/node libraries. A new user might wonder if they are some advanced syntax or something.
|
Yea, these instances are preserved across core / contrib until 0.15 because it’s a breaking change to remove them (it means losing support for 0.14.0 and 0.14.1). I think it’d be preferable to mention they’re optional. I believe there’s another docs page where we talk about instance names being used for readable JavaScript that we could crib from? |
|
This hasn't been merged because feedback hasn't been addressed. It wouldn't take much to finish it. |
The compiler change to make instance names optional was introduced in v0.14.2:
https://github.com/purescript/purescript/releases/tag/v0.14.2