Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC2024 voting

Sorry for my slow response. A few observations, and my vote: The proposal mentions ImpredicativeTypes, but it doesn't seem to appear on the ballot? (Personally I'm not in favour of including it, but was this an accidental omission?) I feel strongly that enabling GHC2024 should be equivalent to enabling all its constituent extensions (which is not the case for GHC2021, e.g. because -XTypeOperators enables ExplicitNamespaces but -XGHC2021 does not). This motivates including ExplicitNamespaces and GADTs with MonoLocalBinds. Alternatively, if the collective opinion is that GADTs should not be included, I believe we should seriously consider removing ExistentialQuantification. * [x] DataKinds * [ ] DefaultSignatures * [x] DerivingStrategies * [x] DisambiguateRecordFields * [x] ExplicitNamespaces * [x] GADTs with MonoLocalBinds * [ ] GADTs without MonoLocalBinds * [x] LambdaCase * [x] RoleAnnotations * [ ] TypeData * [ ] TypeFamilies * [ ] BlockArguments Cheers, Adam On 16/12/2023 13:16, Simon Marlow wrote:

* [x] DataKinds * [x] DefaultSignatures * [x] DerivingStrategies * [x] DisambiguateRecordFields * [x] ExplicitNamespaces * [x] GADTs with MonoLocalBinds * [x] GADTs without MonoLocalBinds * [x] LambdaCase * [x] RoleAnnotations * [ ] TypeData * [x] TypeFamilies * [ ] BlockArguments

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 17:54, Joachim Breitner mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:

Dear Committee,

there isn't much discussion, but maybe a silent consensus that we should go ahead with this?

So please cast your vote about each of the following extensions; simply by replying to this email and putting an x next to those extensions you think should be part of GHC2024.

* [ ] DataKinds * [ ] DefaultSignatures * [ ] DerivingStrategies * [ ] DisambiguateRecordFields * [ ] ExplicitNamespaces * [ ] GADTs with MonoLocalBinds * [ ] GADTs without MonoLocalBinds * [ ] LambdaCase * [ ] RoleAnnotations * [ ] TypeData * [ ] TypeFamilies * [ ] BlockArguments

As per the process (#372) the quorum for inclusion is  _7 votes_ out of the 10 current committee members. So it takes only four “no”s to block an extension.

I’m putting GADTs in two both variants on the ballot. If “GADTs with MonoLocalBinds” makes it in, then its in, and only if not we look at “GADTs without MonoLocalBinds”. So it may make sense to vote in favor of both.

Ballot boxes are upen until Jan 8th, but it is probably better for everyone if votes are casted sooner. Maybe we can do it within a week?

Thanks, Joachim

-- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

-- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/ Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England