- ghc-steering-committee

Status
by Joachim Breitner 29 Aug '20

29 Aug '20

Dear Committee, no longer monthly, but still happening: Regular status updates. So what has happened in the last 4 months? * Chris Allen stepped down from the committee. Thanks for your work, Chris. * There was discussion about more rigid rules for the constitution of the committee. * There was a meeting during ICFP, Richard will summarize. * we were asked to review these proposals: #303: Constraint based arrow notation, new shepherd: Alejandro #275: Rebindable Application, shepherd: Richard #292: ByteArray Literals, shepherd: Vitaly #333: Defer Parse Errors, shepherd: Tom #344: Negative Literals Improved, shepherd: Joachim #343: BangPatterns by default, shepherd: SPJ * we have a recommendation from the shepherd about: #320: clsdfltassoctypinst in bckpck&.hs-boot (rec: accept) #195: Make Q (TExp a) into a newtype (rec: accept) #270: Extend Term-Level Lookup Rules (rec: reject) #274: Quicklook impredicativity (rec: accept) #344: Negative Literals Improved (rec: accept) #343: BangPatterns by default (rec: reject) * we have sent the following proposals back to revision #303: Constraint based arrow notation #292: ByteArray Literals #319: NoFallibleDo proposal * we decided about the following proposals #285: -XNoImplicitForAll (accept) #216: QualifiedDo (accept) #320: clsdfltassoctypinst in bckpck&.hs-boot (accept) #195: Make Q (TExp a) into a newtype (accept) #274: Quicklook impredicativity (accept) #344: Negative Literals Improved (accept) #343: BangPatterns by default (reject) We currently have to act on the following 2 proposals, down by 5. Good work! ## Waiting for committee decision none! ## Waiting for Shepherd action #333: Defer Parse Errors, Shepherd: Tom Tom, is this ready for Committee consideration? #302: Layout and Guards in Lambda Expressions, Shepherd: Cale Cale, it is high time to jump into action here! Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Bang patterns: 343
by Simon Peyton Jones 29 Aug '20

29 Aug '20

Friends Despite asking, I'm not seeing any support for proposal 343 "Enable bang patterns by default<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/343>", except from the author. He makes a good case, but I think it's a case that you could make for quite a few extensions. I propose that we reject the proposal as written. Any objections? That leaves the wider question, best summarised by Joachim's post<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/343#issuecomment-664631…>: we could occasionally add a new synonym for a bunch of extensions. I suppose we'd have to (a) debate and decide that process and (b) execute on the process. Perhaps that'd be useful but it's all work. Let's first see if there is real support for doing it. If so, probably the best thing would be for someone who wants it to happen to write a proposal (as Joachim has started) describing the process. Simon

5 5

Meet during ICFP?
by Iavor Diatchki 28 Aug '20

28 Aug '20

Hello, I was wondering if folks would be interested in a quick video chat some time next week? We have met in person during past ICFPs, and I think it is fun to interact a little more directly with people, even if it happens quite rarely :) Potential topics to discuss could be: * how are things going with the committee---there doesn't seem to be much discussion happening on proposal, * I would like to hear more about the Haskell Foundation idea, and I think it might be easier to convey the vision in person, rather than trying to figure it out through the formal documents * There is a ticket about potentially defining a GHC2020 multi-extension: I think that's an interesting idea, but we may want to discuss (1) how do other folks feel about such a thing, (2) what's the most constructive way to make progress on this kind of topic, as there are likely going to be many different opinions on what GHC2020 should be. Thoughts? -Iavor

7 13

Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC proposals
by Simon Peyton Jones 27 Aug '20

27 Aug '20

Thank you so much Vitaly. That’s really helpful. I appreciate it. Simon From: Vitaly Bragilevsky <bravit111(a)gmail.com> Sent: 26 August 2020 14:28 To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj(a)microsoft.com> Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC proposals Hi Simon, I've updated the slides: numbers, list of accepted proposals, list of members. I've also added a slide on the changes in the committee process we've adopted since the last year. They were listed as open problems previously. Hopefully, this helps! Vitaly ср, 26 авг. 2020 г. в 07:05, Vitaly Bragilevsky <bravit111(a)gmail.com<mailto:bravit111@gmail.com>>: Hi Simon, I'd be happy to do that today. Vitaly вт, 25 авг. 2020 г. в 23:54, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org<mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org>>: Friends on the GHC Steering Committee, I’m giving a “state of GHC” report to the Haskell Implementors Workshop on Friday. As part of that, last year I summarised the state of GHC proposals (see attached slides). Would any of you have a moment to write a couple of slides about this year’s activity, maybe in the same format, or really whatever you want? I could do it, of course, but I’m running around writing all the *other* slides, and I’d very much welcome your help. (Our peerless secretary Joachim is computationally disconnected, so he can’t.) Thank you! Simon From: Joachim Breitner <mail(a)joachim-breitner.de<mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de>> Sent: 25 August 2020 20:49 To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj(a)microsoft.com<mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com>> Subject: Re: GHC proposals Hi Simon, I am travelling by bike and tent and without laptop right now. I might be back by Thursday night, but cannot guarantee it. Maybe ask on the mailing list if someone else can update the numbers? Cheers from 25.08.2020 20:37:43 Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj(a)microsoft.com<mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com>>: Joachim I’m giving a “stage of GHC” report to the Haskell Implementors Workshop on Friday. As part of that, last year I summarised the state of GHC proposals (see attached slides). Would you have a moment to write a couple of slides about this year’s activity, maybe in the same format, or really whatever you want. Thanks! Simon _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org<mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.hask…>

1 0

Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC proposals
by Simon Peyton Jones 26 Aug '20

26 Aug '20

Friends on the GHC Steering Committee, I’m giving a “state of GHC” report to the Haskell Implementors Workshop on Friday. As part of that, last year I summarised the state of GHC proposals (see attached slides). Would any of you have a moment to write a couple of slides about this year’s activity, maybe in the same format, or really whatever you want? I could do it, of course, but I’m running around writing all the *other* slides, and I’d very much welcome your help. (Our peerless secretary Joachim is computationally disconnected, so he can’t.) Thank you! Simon From: Joachim Breitner <mail(a)joachim-breitner.de> Sent: 25 August 2020 20:49 To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj(a)microsoft.com> Subject: Re: GHC proposals Hi Simon, I am travelling by bike and tent and without laptop right now. I might be back by Thursday night, but cannot guarantee it. Maybe ask on the mailing list if someone else can update the numbers? Cheers from 25.08.2020 20:37:43 Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj(a)microsoft.com<mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com>>: Joachim I’m giving a “stage of GHC” report to the Haskell Implementors Workshop on Friday. As part of that, last year I summarised the state of GHC proposals (see attached slides). Would you have a moment to write a couple of slides about this year’s activity, maybe in the same format, or really whatever you want. Thanks! Simon

2 1

#344: Negative Literals Improved, rec: accept
by Joachim Breitner 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Dear Committee, a refinement to the NegativeLiterals extension has been proposed by Vladislav Zavialov (int-index). https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/344 https://github.com/int-index/ghc-proposals/blob/negative-literals-improved/… He noticed that x-1 parses as x (-1) which is probably not what people expect. With this change it would be parsed as x - 1 by requiring that a negative literal may not be preceded by a “closing toking”. Nice side effect: This makes NegativeLiterals a subset of LexicalNegation (according to the author). The proposal has been received positively by the crowd on Github. I suggest we accept that proposal. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

5 8

Please review #343: BangPatterns by default, Shepherd: Simon PJ
by Joachim Breitner 21 Jul '20

21 Jul '20

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: BangPatterns by default has been proposed by AndreasPK https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/343 https://github.com/AndreasPK/ghc-proposals/blob/bang_by_default/proposals/0… I propose Simon PJ as the shepherd, as this affects a relatively fundamental principle of our work so far (all changes are guarded by language extensions), and accepting/rejecting this proposal likely has precedence character. 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/

3 2

Haddock
by Richard Eisenberg 14 Jul '20

14 Jul '20

Hi committee, With a steady level of activity adding new features to GHC, I fear we may be forgetting one important downstream client: Haddock. For a nice example of how our decisions can cause trouble, see https://github.com/goldfirere/singletons/issues/466#issuecomment-646117067. Despite appearing on the singletons bug tracker, that comment is all about Haddock support for https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/3dfec03b11e8829d7febbb7…, the -XStandaloneKindSignatures extension. This makes me wonder: should we invite a maintainer of Haddock to be an ex-officio (and voting) member of the committee? This would have two salutary effects: - It would force us to consider an important aspect of the user experience -- reading documentation -- of newly proposed features. - It would force us to give Haddock a heads-up about new features they may want to incorporate. If we don't think we need an ex-officio committee member, then perhaps we should instead require future proposals to describe a plausible impact on Haddock. I say "plausible impact" to suggest that the proposal text would not be binding on Haddock (which would be awfully dictatorial of us), but that it gives Haddock a starting place to consider their own design, while forcing proposers to think about this important-but-easily-neglected aspect of language evolution. What do we think? Richard

8 15

Please review #292: ByteArray Literals, Shepherd: Vitaly
by Joachim Breitner 24 Jun '20

24 Jun '20

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: ByteArray Literals has been proposed by Andrew Martin (based on a proposal by Oleg Grenus) https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/292 https://github.com/andrewthad/ghc-proposals/blob/bytearray-literals/proposa… I propose Vitaly 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/

3 3

Please review #333: Defer parse errors, Shepherd: Tom Harding
by Joachim Breitner 16 Jun '20

16 Jun '20

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Defer parse errors has been proposed by our own Alejandro Serrano Mena https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/333 https://github.com/serras/ghc-proposals/blob/allow-unfinished-do/proposals/… I propose Tom 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