The Report specifies the semantics of most (all other than Generic?) derivation strategies that are baked-in to the compiler. https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/haskellch11.html#x18-182000... I think this raises an issue of what *exactly* we are currently referring to as "bespoke". E.G. can it vary with the precise compiler being used? (Maybe your wiki page addresses this; I haven't clicked through.) But maybe "language-report" would supplant "bespoke". And perhaps "GHC-7.8" would also make sense, if the baked-in derivation scheme varies from the report's spec? Etc. HTH. -Nick On Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 12:24 Elliot Cameron wrote:

Given the prevalence of spellings like "normalise" in common Haskell packages, we might just be settling on British English. Being American makes that a tad difficult on my end, but personally I can make peace with it.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Matthew Pickering < matthewtpickering@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I also like 'bespoke' but then it seems to be a much more common in British English than American English.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Ryan Scott wrote:

...

Bardur,

Since you don't like "bespoke", would you mind suggesting an alternative, or advocating for a previously mentioned idea? From [1], the ideas I've seen tossed around are:

* builtin * standard (Elliot Cameron suggested it here [2]) * wiredin (Cater Schonwald suggested it here [3]) * magic (Andres Löh suggested it here [4]) * native * original * specialized (the above three are ad hoc suggestions I came up with in a hurry)

Ryan S. ----- [1] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/DerivingStrategies... [2] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2016-July/012448.html [3] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2016-July/012450.html [4] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2016-July/012453.html _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

---

ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

On 2016-08-19 03:45, Baldur Blöndal wrote:

I haven't followed the thread but do we actually need a name for it, can't it be indicated by omission? ‘default’ or ‘builtin’ sounds okay

'default' is good too, IMO.

Honestly, I don't care particularly much which exact word it becomes just as long at isn't some 'cute' or obscurse[1] word.

'magic' belongs in the 'cute' category, I think and 'bespoke' belongs in the latter. I'm native German. I never was in any English-speaking country in my life. Almost all my English media is from the USA. I'm not a tailor. Yet "bespoke" was familiar and instantly tells me what's important. So I may just be one point on the map, but I am not sure your argument that it is "obscure" is valid, sorry.

That being said, let me add a package of "awwww"s for all the times an English native complains that he has to learn a new word to program. Take a portion and pass it along, would you? ;) Apropos learning words: while searching for information if "bespoke" is really obscure (I found none in either direction) I stumbled upon some (I think) not-yet-mentioned possible options * custom(i[zs]ed)? * tailored * idiosyncratic (uh, yeah!) Yet my vote is with "bespoke". Short, informative, recognizable, and a nice balance of quirky and reasonable, just like so much else here. Cheers, MarLinn

On 2016-08-19 08:34, monkleyon--- via ghc-devs wrote:

...

Honestly, I don't care particularly much which exact word it becomes just as long at isn't some 'cute' or obscurse[1] word.

'magic' belongs in the 'cute' category, I think and 'bespoke' belongs in the latter. I'm native German. I never was in any English-speaking country in my life. Almost all my English media is from the USA. I'm not a tailor. Yet "bespoke" was familiar and instantly tells me what's important. So I may just be one point on the map, but I am not sure your argument that it is "obscure" is valid, sorry.

That being said, let me add a package of "awwww"s for all the times an English native complains that he has to learn a new word to program. Take a portion and pass it along, would you? ;)

Apropos learning words: while searching for information if "bespoke" is really obscure (I found none in either direction) I stumbled upon some (I think) not-yet-mentioned possible options

I said it was *needlessly* obscure. There's absolutely no reason to choose such a word in this case.

* custom(i[zs]ed)?

This seems to convey the exact opposite when used in the programming domain. When I 'customize' something or specify a 'custom' $something, I expect that I, the programmer, am going to provide the logic/behavior/whatever.

* tailored

Just as 'bad' as bespoke -- and still has a sort of feeling of 'customized'. Bespoke at least has the very strong connotation of "getting someone else to do it for you" whereas tailored doesn't *quite* have that. (All, IMO, of course.) Regards,

Artisanal often means the same thing as bespoke in American English, though some times with an ironic / mocking subtext. At the same time, artisanal is often used with words like organic or natural. Which are often used in opposition to terms like synthetic or synthesized. In this context, it's even worse :) It is perfectly understandable for me to say "" I am using the built in ghc deriving machinery to synthesize the code for the natural functor definition of this data type "" I suppose it's bespoke in the sense that it's manufactured at most once, it's organic / natural in that there's usually only one accepted definition of the instance that is expected , and synthesized in that it's being manufactured by code rather than humans (yet not synthetic in that ghc comes with those particular derivation tactics, in contrast to user/library supplied codes) On Friday, August 19, 2016, Bardur Arantsson wrote:

(Sorry if anybody receives this twice, I think I flubbed my 'send'.)

On 2016-08-19 08:34, monkleyon--- via ghc-devs wrote:

...

Yet my vote is with "bespoke". Short, informative, recognizable, and a nice balance of quirky and reasonable, just like so much else here.

... oh, and might I submit the opinion that quirky is not a quality that to be desired of a programming language, even if it's only a keyword?

(Anyway, I think I'll stop here. This is too much opinion for any further discussion to be useful.)

Regards,

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org javascript:; http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs