- ghc-steering-committee

#195: Make Q (TExp a) into a newtype, rec: accept
by Vitaly Bragilevsky 15 Mar '19

15 Mar '19

Hi everyone, Matthew Pickering proposed to make Q (TExp a) into a newtype called Code. Proposal #195: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/22e97d7693edb0b3676c948… Pull request discussion: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/195 It looks like the motivation behind this proposal boils down to the convenience of writing instances which seems a good thing. The minor problem I see is the proposed name "Code" as it looks a little bit too abstract for Typed Template Haskell expressions. Nevertheless, I recommend to accept the proposal as it is. Silence is understood as agreement. Regards, Vitaly

4 4

Proposal #204: shelve for the moment
by Iavor Diatchki 13 Mar '19

13 Mar '19

Hello, I am the shepherd for #204 "Remove nested bracket restriction in Template Haskell" [1]. After some more discussion with Matt on the git-hub thread, it seems that there are some issues related to lifting values across multiple stages, so it seems better to shelve this for the moment, until those and some related TH proposals are worked out. -Iavor [1] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/204

2 1

Please review #195: newtype Q (TExp a), Shepherd: Vitaly
by Joachim Breitner 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Make Q (TExp a) into a newtype has been proposed by Matthew Pickering https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/195 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/22e97d7693edb0b3676c948… I propose Vitaly 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/

1 0

Please review #204: nested brackets, Shepherd: Iavor
by Joachim Breitner 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Remove nested bracket restriction in Template Haskell has been proposed by Matthew Pickering https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/204 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/a5fca22bd396647c5b5efb9… I propose Iavor 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/

1 0

Please review #207: type variables in quotations, Shepherd: Richard
by Joachim Breitner 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: type variables in quotations has been proposed by Richard Eisenberg https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/207 https://github.com/mpickering/ghc-proposals/blob/csp-types/proposals/0000-c… I propose Richard 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/

1 0

Please review #209: Levity Polymorphic Lift, Shepherd: Eric Seidel
by Joachim Breitner 27 Feb '19

27 Feb '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Levity polymorphic lift has been proposed by Alec Theiault https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/209 https://github.com/harpocrates/ghc-proposals/blob/levity-polymorphic-lift/p… I propose Erid Seidel 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/

1 0

[Proposal] #193: Make `forall` a keyword in type (recommendation: accept)
by Eric Seidel 14 Feb '19

14 Feb '19

This proposal suggests making `forall` a keyword at the type-level. `forall` is currently only a keyword when `-XExplicitForAll` is enabled. This change would avoid a potentially confusing situation where the meaning of a type can change based on which extensions are enabled. For example, ``` f2 :: forall a -> a -> a ``` with no extensions, the `forall a` would be interpreted as two regular type variables. But if we enable the upcoming "visible dependent quantification" extension (I assume there's an extension involved here somewhere, the proposal doesn't say), the `forall a` would be interpreted as a *single* dependently quantified type variable `a`. The only concerns are that this change could break existing programs, and that it moves us further away from the standard. I'd be very suspicious of any programs that used `forall` as a type variable, as that's just ripe for confusion. And it's a very small step away from the standard, so I don't think that should stand in the proposal's way either. I recommend we accept the proposal.

3 4

Proposal #167 (Deprecated Entities): Request for comments
by Vitaly Bragilevsky 08 Feb '19

08 Feb '19

Dear Committee, I was asked to shepherd the proposal #167 (Deprecated Entities, https://github.com/nineonine/ghc-proposals/blob/depr-entities/proposals/000…) It is proposed to extend DEPRECATED pragma with the two specifiers to disambiguate deprecating named type-level and value-level things. Simon suggested another alternative to make DEPRECATED pragmas positional (in consistency with the deprecating modules). I like the positional alternative more, as it enables more fine-grained control over deprecated entities and can be extended to deprecating unnamed entities (like type class instances). It seems the author is okay with rewriting the proposal, but the current proposal is already implemented. So, the question is: do we want it quick or good? I am not ready to answer this question and come up with the recommendation on the proposal yet. Please, comment on the following issues: a) which form of the DEPRECATED pragma you prefer, b) do you see any potential drawbacks of the positional form, c) are there any caveats with deprecating instances. Your comments are very welcome either here or on GitHub ( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/167) Thanks, Vitaly

6 11

Please review #155: Type Variable in Lambdas, Shepherd: Iavor
by Joachim Breitner 05 Feb '19

05 Feb '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Richard wants to bind Type variables in lambda.: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/155 https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/type-lambda/proposals/0000… I propose Iavor Diatchki 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/

1 0

Please review #193: forall keyword, Shepherd: Eric
by Joachim Breitner 04 Feb '19

04 Feb '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: make `forall` a keyword proposed by Richard: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/193 https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/forall-keyword/proposals/0… I propose Eris Seidel 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/

1 0