- ghc-steering-committee

Modifiers and #512: NoFieldSelectors
by Vladislav Zavialov 14 Jan '24

14 Jan '24

Dear Committee Members, Our previous discussion regarding #512 was inconclusive. Thread 1: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2022-November/002… Thread 2: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2022-December/003… #512 is the proposal that introduces per-declaration, per-constructor, and per-field NoFieldSelectors annotations. I'm not quite sure how to summarize the discussion because everyone seems to have a unique view. But it all revolves around a syntactic issue: should the proposal use pragma-based syntax or modifiers-based syntax? Here are two facts to inform your opinion: 1. The Modifiers proposal is accepted, and it makes sense to use it for the proposed feature 2. The Modifiers proposal is, however, unimplemented So at the moment #512 says that we'd first introduce the pragma-based syntax, and when Modifiers are implemented we could deprecate the pragma-based syntax in favor of Modifiers. I am *strongly* opposed to introducing a feature that we know is destined for deprecation. But not everyone shares this attitude, apparently, so let's vote. Here are the options. Select all that you find acceptable (multiple-choice): * [ ] Accept the proposal with pragma-based syntax, then deprecate it and switch to modifiers-based syntax * [ ] Accept the proposal with pragma-based syntax, do not switch to modifiers-based syntax * [ ] Revise the proposal to use modifiers-based syntax and then accept * [ ] Reject the proposal regardless of syntax Before you vote, let me try to sway you towards the "revise" option. If we choose to revise, I volunteer to implement Modifiers in time for GHC 9.12. I believe Modifiers are a splendid idea and I envision many good uses for them. Vlad

6 6

GHC2024 tally
by Joachim Breitner 10 Jan '24

10 Jan '24

Dear committee, with all votes in (thanks!), the following extensions made quorum to form GHC2024: DataKinds DerivingStrategies DisambiguateRecordFields ExplicitNamespaces GADTs (and the implied MonoLocalBinds) LambdaCase RoleAnnotations See the full tally in the proposal: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/joachim/ghc2024/proposa… Any final thoughts? Should we hold off accepting that in light of #628 (I don’t hope so). Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

3 3

GHC2024 voting
by Joachim Breitner 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

Dear Committee, there isn't much discussion, but maybe a silent consensus that we should go ahead with this? So please cast your vote about each of the following extensions; simply by replying to this email and putting an x next to those extensions you think should be part of GHC2024. * [ ] DataKinds * [ ] DefaultSignatures * [ ] DerivingStrategies * [ ] DisambiguateRecordFields * [ ] ExplicitNamespaces * [ ] GADTs with MonoLocalBinds * [ ] GADTs without MonoLocalBinds * [ ] LambdaCase * [ ] RoleAnnotations * [ ] TypeData * [ ] TypeFamilies * [ ] BlockArguments As per the process (#372) the quorum for inclusion is _7 votes_ out of the 10 current committee members. So it takes only four “no”s to block an extension. I’m putting GADTs in two both variants on the ballot. If “GADTs with MonoLocalBinds” makes it in, then its in, and only if not we look at “GADTs without MonoLocalBinds”. So it may make sense to vote in favor of both. Ballot boxes are upen until Jan 8th, but it is probably better for everyone if votes are casted sooner. Maybe we can do it within a week? Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

12 19

Please review #625: Stability Goals, Shepherd: Moritz
by Joachim Breitner 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

Dear Committee, Simon wrote up the new Stability policy: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/625 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/wip/general-rules/princ… Given that Moritz has stability very high on his agenda, I suggest he shepherds this through the process. Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

2 1

Please review #569: multiline string literals, Shepherd: Eric
by Joachim Breitner 01 Jan '24

01 Jan '24

Dear Committee, Brandon Chinn has a proposal for multiline string literals. Let the bikeshedding begin. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/569 https://github.com/brandonchinn178/ghc-proposals/blob/multiline-strings/pro… I’d like to nominate Eric as the shepherd. Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

4 6

GHC Committe Chairs term
by Joachim Breitner 22 Dec '23

22 Dec '23

Dear Simon and Simon, your current three terms on the committee end soon (Feb 2024). The bylaws say that you will stay on the committee without renomination and electing if you wish to do so (and the rest of the committee agrees with majority). Therefore I ask: do you want to stay on the committee for another term? (If you do I already register my vote to support this outcome, with four more such votes from non-chair-members we’ll have fulfilled this little ceremony.) Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

3 2

GHC stability
by Simon Peyton Jones 22 Dec '23

22 Dec '23

Dear Jose, GHC Steering Group, and HF Stability Group There has been quite a lot of recent discussion about actions we could take to promote GHC stability. In an effort to gather these threads together I have written *GHC Staibility State of Play* <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sX_rXHx8Mj3Kae9GalR2BwZ5-xzl7UpnpMBwl4d…> It articulates the Big Goal, and some discussions that are going on around it. Jose, I think that the Big Goal could be a helpful focus for HF. I'm not sure which of the strands is highest priority (causes most friction for users) so HF's guidance about that would be helpful. It would be great to move some of this forward. Simon

1 0

Please review #626: Visible Forall in Types, Shepherd: Arnaud
by Joachim Breitner 11 Dec '23

11 Dec '23

Dear Committee, Vladislav proposes to support visible forall in types of terms better: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/626 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/626/files I’d like to nominate Arnaud as the shepherd. Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Please review #624: Linear lets, Shepherd: Richard
by Joachim Breitner 07 Dec '23

07 Dec '23

Dear Committee, Arnaud wants to amend linear types with linear lets: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/624 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/624/files I’d like to nominate Richard as the shepherd, given that he shepherded the Linear Types. But if you have too much on your plate, feel free to reassign to someone else. Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

GHC2024 committee deliberation
by Joachim Breitner 04 Dec '23

04 Dec '23

Dear Committee, I’d like to get the committe involvement in GHC2024 started. The current proposal is at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/613 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/joachim/ghc2024/proposa… At the moment, six changes relative to CHC2021 are proposed by committee and by community members. See the proposal for rationales. My goal is to have a decision in time for 9.10. I suggest we use November to deliberate the proposals and maybe add more changes to the list, and then vote in early December. We’ll put each change separately on the ballot. I know that there are ongoing discussions that could arguably affect how we want the next GHC20xx to look like, in particular the just opened #620, and I anticipate a desire to postpone GHC2024 until that has been decided. But I recall that we postponed GHC2023 for (among other reasons) for the same reason, and I wouldn’t be surprised that if in a year we have yet another unresolved question that seems worth waiting for. If this pattern reminds you of the GHC release process before we introduced the regular cadence, then maybe you’ll agree that if we want a predictable and reasonable frequent stream of language editions, we have to avoid such delays when feasible. So please let us know what you think of the proposed changes, what other changes you want to see, or if you have qualms about the process. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

4 19