Georgi Krastev
Georgi Krastev
Oh no, definitely no `Split1` 😂 - that is a horrible hack. But worth it to investigate why it's not compiling 🤔
That's rather a deliberate design choice. Changing it at this point is not an option as it would be really disruptive. What we can consider is adding one more flavour...
> A separate type of derivation would work for me, but I really do think the existing behavior is counterintuitive and is likely to bite other users. I think a...
> I get where you're coming from, but it could be a new major release with the change called out. Plus anyone who blindly upgrades would only see new compile...
I don't know what I would call it - perhaps `strict`? Then we have the `derives` enrichment which can go in `cats.derived.strict` and the explicit methods can go in `cats.derived.strict.semiauto`...
@mrdziuban I drafted an example for `Eq`: #626 - Let me know what do you think?
That's quite interesting. I think if we include them, they should be in a separate module. So far the strategy has been to add methods that work with polymorphic lambdas....
Wow, that's very clever. I think it could be valuable to even to include the aliases in a separate compat module.
In that case it might be better to try and finally finish cross-compiling Shapeless 2 to Scala 3: https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless/pull/1200 Or start from scratch with a less ambitious version. I think...
The problem with your manual `given` is that you fixed the type without the refinement. You could try `given Mirror.Sum with` instead. As for the macro - I think `transparent...