- ghc-steering-committee

Please review #275: Rebindable Application, Shepherd: Richard Eisenberg
by Joachim Breitner 19 May '20

19 May '20

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Rebindable Application has been proposed by tydeu (Mac Malone) https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/275 https://github.com/tydeu/ghc-proposals/blob/overloaded-application/proposal… I propose Richard Eisenberg as the shepherd. 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

Proposal #320: recommendation: accept
by Richard Eisenberg 13 May '20

13 May '20

Hi committee, I am the shepherd for #320, about a tweak to the handling of associated-type defaults in hs-boot and signature files. I recommend acceptance. Proposal: https://github.com/obsidiansystems/ghc-proposals/blob/signature-type-instan… <https://github.com/obsidiansystems/ghc-proposals/blob/signature-type-instan…> Recommendation (in GitHub thread): https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/320#issuecomment-623346… <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/320#issuecomment-623346…> As stated in our published process (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process>), technical conversation should go on the GitHub thread, while evaluative comments can go on this thread in the mailing list. I expect this will be boring and uncontroversial to many of us. I will accept this in one week unless debate has sprung up. Thanks! Richard

2 1

Chris Allen standing down
by Simon Peyton Jones 06 May '20

06 May '20

Friends Chris Allen has asked to step down from the GHC Steering Committee - he just has too much else to do. Thank you Chris for your contributions! I hope that you will still keep a watching eye on GHC proposals as they go by - your perspective as a Haskell user is very important. We always risk being supplier-dominated. Joachim, will you update the committee list? I'm not sure if this is the right moment to seek new nominations. Any opinions? Thanks again, Chris. Simon

3 2

Please review #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, Shepherd: Simon Marlow
by Joachim Breitner 04 May '20

04 May '20

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: -XNoImplicitForAll has been proposed by John Ericson https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 https://github.com/Ericson2314/ghc-proposals/blob/no-implicit-forall/propos… I propose Simon Marlow as the shepherd. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

5 9

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

Acceptance of proposal #314: Enable `-Wnoncanonical-monad-instances` and `-Wnoncanonical-monoid-instances` by default
by Tom Harding 26 Apr '20

26 Apr '20

Hi all, I’ve announced the acceptance of this proposal on the GitHub thread. I had meant to do this last week, but world events have interrupted my scheduling quite a lot more than I’d like... https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/314#issuecomment-619588… The one outstanding question, which I think is definitely worth answering, is whether the Monad of No Return proposal currently has a shepherd. SPJ: do you know whether there’s any “active shepherding” around this proposal? Or is the current action just simply waiting for a few releases until the majority of Hackage is writing Applicative/Semigroup instances? My understanding is the latter, but I think it’s worth making it explicit somewhere. Thanks, Tom

1 0

Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Committee Review #314: Enable `-Wnoncanonical-monad-instances` and `-Wnoncanonical-monoid-instances` by default
by Tom Harding 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

Hi all, My feeling is that, having incorporated Richard’s suggestions around clarity of the error, we’re broadly happy with this. This proposal was put forward two weeks ago, and it seems that those who have responded are in favour of it. It does raise questions around the current state of the “Monad of No Return” plan, but I think that’s an ongoing effort that currently calls for patience (as the majority of libraries adopt the proposed changes), and I maintain that this proposal would help that effort. Does anyone have anything further that they’d like to add? Otherwise, if no one has any objection, perhaps this proposal can be accepted at the end of the week. Thanks, Tom

2 1

Committee Review #314: Enable `-Wnoncanonical-monad-instances` and `-Wnoncanonical-monoid-instances` by default
by Tom Harding 05 Apr '20

05 Apr '20

Friends, This proposal seems very reasonable to me, and the ramifications are minimal. Consequently, I recommend that we accept. I’d now like to open the proposal up to committee discussion. My belief is that the issue be fairly uncontentious (particularly as prior behaviour can be fully restored by explicitly passing the relevant `-Wno-...` flags to the compiler), but I welcome any thoughts either way. Thanks, Tom

5 5