May 2020 - ghc-steering-committee

Status
by Joachim Breitner 03 May '20

03 May '20

Dear Committee, I have maintained proper social distancing from writing status mails, wisely preemptively since mid-December, but with the infection numbers going down this is no longer justifiable. Most of the time has been spent on debating and discussing the Record syntax proposal, which we eventually resolved by voting for a somewhat conservative choice. Given that I’ll try to summarize 4½ months, there might be holes. So anyways, what has happened? * Alejandro Serrano Mena, Cale Gibbard and Tom Harding have joined up. Welcome! * we were asked to review these proposals: #303: Constraint based arrow notation, Shepherd: Chis Allen #287: Simplify subsumption, Shepherd: Arnaud #302: Layout and Guards in Lambda Expressions, Shepherd: Cale #314: -Wnoncanonical-mumble-instances, Shepherd: Tom Harding #319: NoFallibleDo proposal, Shepherd: Eric Seidel #320: clsdfltassoctypinst in bckpck&.hs-boot, Shepherd: Richard Eisenberg #270: Extend Term-Level Lookup Rules, Shepherd: Iavor (resubmission) #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, Shephard Simon M (resubmission) * we have a recommendation from the shepherd about: #282: RecordDotSyntax language extension proposal (rec: accept by vote) #287: Simplify subsumption (rec: accept) #216: Qualified Do (rec: accept one of the variants) #314: -Wnoncanonical-mumble-instances (rec: accept) #285: -XNoImplicitForAll (rec: accept) * we have sent the following proposals back to revision #216: QualifiedDo, but it’s already back * we decided about the following proposals #301: Rename PtrRep to BoxedRep (accept) #282: RecordDotSyntax language extension proposal (accept by vote) #287: Simplify subsumption (accept) #111: Linear Types (final acceptance) #314: -Wnoncanonical-mumble-instances (accept) We currently have to act on the following 7 proposals, up by 5! ## Waiting for committee decision #216: Qualified Do, Shepherd: Joachim Strong backing for one variant, but no consensus yet. Let’s keep talking (or vote!) ## Waiting for Shepherd action #285: -XNoImplicitForAll (rec: accept) acceptance imminent #302: Layout and Guards in Lambda Expressions, Shepherd: Cale #303: Constraint based arrow notation, Shepherd: Chis Allen #319: NoFallibleDo proposal, Shepherd: Eric Seidel #320: clsdfltassoctypinst in bckpck&.hs-boot, Shepherd: Richard Eisenberg #270: Extend Term-Level Lookup Rules, Shepherd: Iavor This is already a re-submission. Cale and Chris, you have two rather old proposals on your plate. Please be considerate of our contributor’s motivation and show some activity! Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ #320: clsdfltassoctypinst in bckpck&.hs-boot, Shepherd: Richard Eisenberg

1 0

Re: [ghc-steering-committee] [ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals] RecordDotSyntax language extension proposal (#282)
by Simon Peyton Jones 03 May '20

03 May '20

Dear GHC steering committee Shayne and Neil have updated the RecordDotSyntax proposal in the light of our conclusions. We have debated this extensively, so the question is now not so much about content as presentation: is the proposal complete, clear, and precise? I think it’s pretty good, and I propose that we now accept it as-is. I’ll take silence as assent. Please yell by close of play Weds 22 April if you’d like any further changes. Thanks! Simon From: Shayne Fletcher <notifications(a)github.com> Sent: 11 April 2020 17:59 To: ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals <ghc-proposals(a)noreply.github.com> Cc: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj(a)microsoft.com>; Mention <mention(a)noreply.github.com> Subject: Re: [ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals] RecordDotSyntax language extension proposal (#282) @simonpj<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…> I'd like to invite the authors to update their proposal to incorporate (C2a) We are happy to report that the proposal has been updated as per the committee's requests. * To write out the changes to the grammar, especially how to deal with specifying aexp2.x (see Note 5) See section 2.3<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…>. * To address the question of what happens if a field name is an operator (see Note 6) See section 2.1.3<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…>. Then the committee can do a final review and sign it off. We should now like to formally request the committee's final review and sign off. We thank once again yourself and the committee for your time and consideration! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…>, or unsubscribe<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…>.

3 2

Please review #320: clsdfltassoctypinst in bckpck&.hs-boot, Shepherd: Richard Eisenberg
by Joachim Breitner 02 May '20

02 May '20

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Ignore class defaults for associated type instances in instances that occur in backpack and hs-boot files (a title too long for the email subject line) has been proposed by Cale https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/320 https://github.com/obsidiansystems/ghc-proposals/blob/signature-type-instan… I propose Richard Eisenberg as the shepherd, as he looked at it before. Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0