- ghc-steering-committee

Status
by Joachim Breitner 10 Oct '17

10 Oct '17

Hi, already a month since the last status! Since the last status update, one proposals was accepted. I have also moved NOUNPACK on function arguments <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/46> to status “dormant”, until the proposal is updated to reflect recent discussion. Open at the moment are: Lazy unboxed tuples https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Still waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Mutable constructor fields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Or Patterns https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Shepherd: Manuel Chakravarty Status: Waiting for Manuel to make a recommendation. Type fixity https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65 Shepherd: Joachim Breitner Status: Not consensus, but majority for “accept”. Current discussion revolves around the question: Can this be included in ExplicitNamespaces, or does it require a separate language extension. The proposer also points out that explicit namespaces would also be useful for various pragmas. Besides these, there are some proposals actively under discussion. You can always check them out at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+no… Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Proposal: Type Fixity (#65), Recommendation: Reject
by Joachim Breitner 07 Oct '17

07 Oct '17

Dear Committee, Ryan Scott’s proposal to allow fixity declaration to explicitly target values or types has been brought before us: https://github.com/RyanGlScott/ghc-proposals/blob/type-infix/0000-type-infi… https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65 I (the secretary) nominates myself as the shepherd, so I can right away continue giving a recommendation. I propose to reject this proposal. The main reasons are: * it is not clear if there is a real use case for this. Has anyone ever complained about the status quo? The proposal does not motivate the need for a change well enough. (There is a related bug in TH, but that bug can probably simply be fixed.) * The status quo can be sold as a feature, rather than a short-coming. Namely that an operator has a fixed fixity, no matter what namespace it lives in. This matches morally what other languages do: In Gallina, fixity is assigned to names independent of their definition, AFAIK. * There is a non-trivial implementation and education overhead, a weight that is not pulled by the gains. If we’d design Haskell from scratch, my verdict might possibly be different (but maybe we wouldn’t even allow types and values to share names then…) Please contradict me or indicate consensus by staying silent. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de https://www.joachim-breitner.de/

8 19

Explicit foralls
by Simon Peyton Jones 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

Friends I propose that we accept the Explicit Foralls proposal<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/55>. * No one objected * It makes the language more expressive and uniform * It fixes a long-standing ticket #2600 The only bump in the road is the double forall in RULES (see the Examples in the proposal). But that's not Ricahrd's fault, and the proposed solution seems reasonable. I move to accept. Simon

3 3

Status
by Joachim Breitner 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

Hi, off the floor at the Haskell Symposium, the current status. I think many of us are here in Oxford. I guess we could try to meet in person and work off the backlog simply by quick real-live discussion – but maybe people have better things to do, and not all of us are here. So let’s just carry on as usual. Since the last status update one new proposals has come up for deliberation, and one proposals was accepted. Open at the moment are: NOUNPACK on function arguments https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/46 Shepherd: Simon Marlow Status: There was more discussion on GitHub, and @treeowl will have a look if the proposal text is reflecting all that discussion. (Still waiting on @treeowl.) Lazy unboxed tuples https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Still waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Explicit foralls proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/55 Shepherd: Simon Peyton Jones Status: Simon recommended to accept this, and we see silent consensus emerging. Mutable constructor fields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Or Patterns https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Shepherd: Manuel Chakravarty Status: Waiting for Manuel to make a recommendation. Type fixity https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65 Shepherd: Joachim Breitner Status: Rejection recommended, but met with different opinions here. We need to either continue debating or *gasp* actually vote. Besides these, there are some proposals actively under discussion. You can always check them out at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+no… Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Please review: deriving for empty, Shepherd: Iavor Diatchki
by Joachim Breitner 28 Aug '17

28 Aug '17

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/63 was brought before the committee, by Ryan Scott. I propose Iavor Diachki as the Shepherd. Iavor, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you. -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de https://www.joachim-breitner.de/

6 9

Status
by Joachim Breitner 19 Aug '17

19 Aug '17

Hi, since the last status update two new proposals has come up for deliberation, and no proposals were decided. Open at the moment are: NOUNPACK on function arguments https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/46 Shepherd: Simon Marlow Status: There was more discussion on GitHub, and @treeowl will have a look if the proposal text is reflecting all that discussion. Lazy unboxed tuples https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Explicit foralls proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/55 Shepherd: Simon Peyton Jones Status: Waiting for Simon to make a recommendation. Mutable constructor fields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. deriving for empty https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/63 Shepherd: Iavor Diatchki Status: Iavor recommends acceptance. There seems to be consensus so far, under the condition of a dedicate LANGUAGE flag for this. Or Patterns https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Shepherd: Manuel Chakravarty Status: Waiting for Manuel to make a recommendation. Besides these, there are some proposals actively under discussion. You can always check them out at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Ap r+no%3Alabel Greetings, 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

1 0

Please review: or patterns, Shepherd: Manuel Chakravarty
by Joachim Breitner 19 Aug '17

19 Aug '17

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 was brought before the committee, by Ömer Sinan Ağacan. I propose Manuel Chakravarty as the Shepherd. Iavor, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Proposal format ambiguity
by David Feuer 08 Aug '17

08 Aug '17

The README and proposal template share an error. In the README: > Proposed Change Specification: > [...] > how the proposed change addresses the original problem (perhaps referring back to the example) > > Effect and Interactions. Detail how the proposed change addresses the original problem raised in the motivation. [...] In the template: > Proposed Change Specification > [...] > how the proposed change addresses the original problem > [...] > Effect and Interactions > > Detail how the proposed change addresses the original problem raised in the motivation. In each case, it is unclear whether the way the proposal addresses the original problem should appear in the proposed change specification section or the effects and interactions section. Minor side note: the title of the first section has a typo, "propsoal". David Feuer

2 1

Status
by Joachim Breitner 03 Aug '17

03 Aug '17

Hi, since the last status update one new proposals has come up for deliberation, and no proposals were decided. Open at the moment are: NOUNPACK on function arguments https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/46 Shepherd: Simon Marlow Status: There was more discussion on GitHub, and @treeowl will have a look if the proposal text is reflecting all that discussion. Lazy unboxed tuples https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Explicit foralls proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/55 Shepherd: Simon Peyton Jones Status: Waiting for Simon to make a recommendation. Mutable constructor fields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Waiting for Ryan to make a recommendation. Besides these, there are some proposals actively under discussion. You can always check them out at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+no… Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Please review: Lazy unboxed tuples, Shepherd: Ryan Newton
by Joachim Breitner 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/45 was brought before the committee, by our own Richard. I propose Ryan Newton as the Shepherd, just to rotate this role properly. Ryan, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

2 2