+Note [Exotic derived instance contexts]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Consider
+ data T a b c = MkT (Foo a b c) deriving( Eq )
+ instance (C Int a, Eq b, Eq c) => Eq (Foo a b c)
+
+Notice that this instance (just) satisfies the Paterson termination
+conditions. Then we *could* derive an instance decl like this:
+
+ instance (C Int a, Eq b, Eq c) => Eq (T a b c)
+
+even though there is no instance for (C Int a), because there just
+*might* be an instance for, say, (C Int Bool) at a site where we
+need the equality instance for T's.
+
+However, this seems pretty exotic, and it's quite tricky to allow
+this, and yet give sensible error messages in the (much more common)
+case where we really want that instance decl for C.
+
+So for now we simply require that the derived instance context
+should have only type-variable constraints.
+
+Here is another example:
+ data Fix f = In (f (Fix f)) deriving( Eq )
+Here, if we are prepared to allow -fallow-undecidable-instances we
+could derive the instance
+ instance Eq (f (Fix f)) => Eq (Fix f)
+but this is so delicate that I don't think it should happen inside
+'deriving'. If you want this, write it yourself!
+
+NB: if you want to lift this condition, make sure you still meet the
+termination conditions! If not, the deriving mechanism generates
+larger and larger constraints. Example:
+ data Succ a = S a
+ data Seq a = Cons a (Seq (Succ a)) | Nil deriving Show
+
+Note the lack of a Show instance for Succ. First we'll generate
+ instance (Show (Succ a), Show a) => Show (Seq a)
+and then
+ instance (Show (Succ (Succ a)), Show (Succ a), Show a) => Show (Seq a)
+and so on. Instead we want to complain of no instance for (Show (Succ a)).