yeah, agreed
currently on the wiki its sometimes hard to determine which pages are "this
is how we implemented it" vs
"this is a bunch of different ideas and approaches we're trying to layout"
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: Hi, Joachim >> yes, you are right that proposals and designs are different Am Mittwoch, den 15.10.2014, 18:48 +0200 schrieb Jan Stolarek:
things. And we already have a namespace for that: Commentary!
Good point. So when a Proposal gets implemented, this should be clearly noted at the top of the Proposal page, linking to the relevant Comentary page
(...)
The discussion about the Proposal would still be there for those who
need to do some historical
digging
I disagree about these statements. Wiki pages typically don't contain
discussions between people -
trac tickets do. Unless you meant theoretical discussion of possible
approaches to implementing a
proposal. That’s what I meant. The kind of „discussion“ found in papers, not the
one found on this list :-) In that case, from my experience, once a proposal is implemented most
of the discussion
about alternatives becomes irrelevant. I wouldn’t be too sure about this (but I also don’t have examples to
back that up right now). Another difference: A proposal needs to convince that something is
useful and worth doing. Once we have a design page that’s no longer
needed, as we have to live with it (or replace it) :-) Greetings,
Joachim --
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org _______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs