I forgot to link a bit of relevant discussion from https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/406, is there a (silent) consensus on the issue? - Oleg On 17.3.2021 19.15, Oleg Grenrus wrote:
I have a following question: My lexer rules related proposal was recently accepted. The biggest part of getting it in is writing documentation for it. While looking at Divergence from Haskell 98 and Haskell 2010 section of the user manual, in particular Lexical syntax, it already has See "GHC Proposal #229 for the precise rules.".
Can I just the same? (I think there was an implicit acceptance of that practice in e.g. https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/1664#note_238759)
However, I think that referring to proposals text for "essential" bits of information is a bad practice. Because GHC proposals are sometimes amended, one have to look into GitHub history to find out what were there for a particular time point of a GHC release. Very laborous.
---
Currently there is 23 references to about a dozen of proposals. An example are passages like
In 9.0, the behavior of this extension changed, and now we require that a negative literal must not be preceded by a closing token (see `GHC Proposal #229 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0229-wh...`__ for the definition of a closing token).
or
a future release will be turned off by default and then possibly removed. The reasons for this and the deprecation schedule are described in `GHC proposal #30 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0030-re...`__.
And there are better examples, which are references for more information, not essential one, like
See the proposal `DuplicateRecordFields without ambiguous field access https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0366-no...`_ and the documentation on :extension:`DuplicateRecordFields` for further details.
(I'd put the internal user manual link first), or
But these automatic eta-expansions may silently change the semantics of the user's program, and deep skolemisation was removed from the language by `GHC Proposal #287 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0287-si...`__. This proposal has many more examples.
---
So to boil down my question, can I write
Lexical syntax of identifiers and decimal numbers differs slightly from the Haskell report. See GHC Proposal #403 for the precise rules and differences.
- Oleg _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs