Xia Li-yao

Also, we can simply define `#->` as an operator. We can have fixed-multiplicity arrows without changing the parser: ```idris infixr 90 #-> a #-> b = (1 _ : a)...

`Typeable` is always derived even if `deriving Typeable` is not there. `deriving Typeable` is just allowed for backwards compatibility. Do you actually need `Show`, `Eq` and `Data`? What happens if...

That sounds like #571. So it's more an accident than a design choice, and as you point out, it's not clear whether it's worth fixing (which would be a breaking...

- To keep the current monadic parser, we might instead introduce a new combinator. ```haskell -- | Run both parsers independently. -- Combine the results if both succeed. -- Otherwise...

#48 and #95 were in this situation before, with solutions that correspond to the first item above.

Indeed, it seems that this option currently only works for `Generic`, not `Generic1`. One way to fix it would be to add incoherent instances for `Rec1`, like what is there...

Can you try ```haskell -- When going through Generic, maybe you don't need the ...1 variant. newtype AesonWrapper a = AesonWrapper { unAesonWrapper :: a } -- You can only...

That would be a good feature to have. I think adding the type name as an argument to `fieldLabelModifier` would be ideal (to allow users to adapt it to their...

Here's a function `typeName` that gives a `String` of the first data constructor in a generic type. It can also be extracted as a `Symbol` at the typelevel first. (I...

What good are both a type and an instance, over a simple function? ``` decodeRetainedJSON :: ByteString -> Maybe (Value, a) ``` The only use case seems to be to...