- ghc-steering-committee

Please review #203: PtrRep, Shepherd: Simon PJ
by Joachim Breitner 03 Feb '19

03 Feb '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: PtrRep has been proposed by Andrew Martin: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/203 https://github.com/andrewthad/ghc-proposals/blob/pointer_rep/proposals/0000… I propose Simon PJ as the shepherd (he already glimpsed at it, so hopefully already has an opinion.) 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

Status
by Joachim Breitner 27 Jan '19

27 Jan '19

Dear committee, another quiet month. There are a few proposals that are desperately waiting for action from Manuel, Ben and Chris. Here is what happened: * were asked to review these proposals: -none- * got a recommendation from shepherds about: #158 Add setField to HasField (rec: accept) * decided about the following proposals -none- (But new, unsubmitted proposals are on the horizon.) We currently have to act on the following 6 proposals, down one because the Or pattern proposal got withdrawn. liftTyped https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/175 Shepherd: Ben Status: Acceptance recommended, more discussion happening, it seems. record-set-field proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/158 Shepherd: Yav Status: Acceptance recommended, discussion about fundeps vs. tf. Type annotated quoters https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125 Shepherd: Manuel Status: Still waiting for recommendation. Manuel? Provenance-Qualified Package Imports https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 Shepherd: Ben Status: Still waiting for recommendation. This is pretty old! ExtraCommas https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 Shepherd: Chris Recommendation: accept Status: Met with some reservation. Chris, please pick this up again. Bundling patterns with synonyms https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28 Shepherd: Chris Recommendation: reject Status: Chris, you still need to write the rejection reasons to the ticket. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

2 1

Bundling patterns with type synonyms (#28)
by Christopher Allen 27 Jan '19

27 Jan '19

The proposal I'm reviewing is: Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28 Having reviewed the proposal and gone through some of the GHC Trac history, I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern. Cheers, Chris Allen

5 11

Discussion for #158 "Add `setFild` to `HasField`"
by Iavor Diatchki 23 Jan '19

23 Jan '19

Hello, let's start the discussion on proposal #158. After some discussion on the pull request the proposal was changed, so that instead of adding another method, it now proposes to remove the existing method `getField`, and add a new method `hasField`, which allows to both access and change the value of a field. After the proposal the class would look like this -- `x` is the name of the field, `r` is the type of the record, `a` is the type of the field class HasField x r a | x r -> a where hasField :: r -> (a -> r, a) In addition, we'd provide two functions `getField` and `setField` which are defined in terms of `hasField`. The proposal may break existing code, if it defines manual instances of `HasField`, however, code that just uses the functionality will continue working as before. `HasField` is relatively new, and there aren't many reasons to define custom instances of it, so it is expected that breaking code would not be a big issue. This seems like a reasonably simple change, that adds new functionality, so I recommend that we accept the change. -Iavor

3 6

Please review #167: Deprecated Entities, Shepherd: Vitaly
by Joachim Breitner 21 Jan '19

21 Jan '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Adding namespaces to DEPRECATED has been proposed by Alex Dudarenko: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/167 https://github.com/nineonine/ghc-proposals/blob/depr-entities/proposals/000… I propose Vitaly Bragilevsky 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

Status
by Joachim Breitner 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

Dear committee, ’tis the season – but not for committee work, it seems. Well, here is what happened: * were asked to review these proposals: #158 The HasField-setfield proposal (shepherd: Iavor) * got a recommendation from shepherds about: #175 Lift.liftTyped (rec: accept) * decided about the following proposals -none- We currently have to act on the following 7 proposals, one up from last time. Most saw no activity in the last month! liftTyped https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/175 Shepherd: Ben Status: Acceptance recommended, but a discussion ensured and did not conclude. Ben, Eric, what is the status. record-set-field proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/158 Shepherd: Yav Status: Waiting for a recommendation. Type annotated quoters https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125 Shepherd: Manuel Status: Still waiting for recommendation. Manuel? Provenance-Qualified Package Imports https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 Shepherd: Ben Status: Still waiting for recommendation. This is pretty old! ExtraCommas https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 Shepherd: Chris Recommendation: accept Status: Met with some reservation. Chris, please pick this up again. Or-Patterns https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Shepherd: Manuel Recommendation: accept Status: Round 2 discussion ebbed down. Manuel, can you conclude this? Bundling patterns with synonyms https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28 Shepherd: Chris Recommendation: reject Status: Chris, you still need to write the rejection reasons to the ticket. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Please review #158: HasField-setField, Shepherd: Iavor
by Joachim Breitner 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Adding `setField` to `HasField` has been proposed by Neil Mitchell: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/158 https://github.com/ndmitchell/ghc-proposals/blob/patch-1/proposals/0000-rec… 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

Guidelines for respectful communication
by Simon Peyton Jones 09 Dec '18

09 Dec '18

Friends As many of you will know, I have been concerned for several years about the standards of discourse in the Haskell community. I think things have improved since the period that drove me to write my Respect email<https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html>, but it's far from secure. We discussed this at a meeting of the GHC Steering Committee<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> at ICFP in September, and many of us have had related discussions since. Arising out of that conversation, the GHC Steering Committee has decided to adopt these Guidelines for respectful communication<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst> We are not trying to impose these guidelines on members of the Haskell community generally. Rather, we are adopting them for ourselves, as a signal that we seek high standards of discourse in the Haskell community, and are willing to publicly hold ourselves to that standard, in the hope that others may choose to follow suit. We are calling them "guidelines for respectful communication" rather than a "code of conduct", because we want to encourage good communication, rather than focus on bad behaviour. Richard Stallman's recent post<https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> about the new GNU Kind Communication Guidelines<https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> expresses the same idea. Meanwhile, the Stack community is taking a similar approach<https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc>. Our guidelines are not set in stone; you can comment here<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a2…>. Perhaps they can evolve so that other Haskell committees (or even individuals) feel able to adopt them. The Haskell community is such a rich collection of intelligent, passionate, and committed people. Thank you -- I love you all! Simon

2 1

Guidelines for respectful communication
by Simon Peyton Jones 05 Dec '18

05 Dec '18

Friends on the GHC steering group Joachim has published our new guidelines, here https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst I'll send an email to ... what... ghc-users and ghc-devs perhaps. Simon

1 0

GHC proposals
by Simon Peyton Jones 04 Dec '18

04 Dec '18

Joachim * Could we add a tag for "Implemented" so that we can have convenient lists for "accepted and implemented" vs "accepted and not yet implemented"? Easy, and valuable. * The "under discussion" list seems terribly short - only two proposals! https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+no… There are tons of proposals under discussion! What's wrong? Thanks Simon

3 7