I’m ok with ImportQualifiedPost.

From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Simon Marlow
Sent: 22 April 2019 22:16
To: Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de>
Cc: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org>
Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] #190: Module qualified syntax, recommendation: accept

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 08:00, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:

Hi,

it looks like we agree on accepting this with a pragma, but need to
decide upon the pragma. We had these options:

* FlexibleImports
* QualifiedLast
* QualifiedImportsPostpositive
* ImportQualifiedPost

Simon M, as the shepherd, care to make a final recommendation about the
pragma and/or ask the authors to come up with one (and amend the
proposal)?

Sometimes I just want someone else to choose the actual syntax while I scowl slightly and accept it :-)

Ok, would anyone be vigorously against ImportQualifiedPost?

(on "FlexibleImports" I'm not very keen on adding an extension flag that we explicitly intend to mean different things in the future. That's just a way of getting around the extension flag policy. Either we think it's a good idea to have flags for every extension, or we don't. Yes I know we've discussed this in the past and there are grey areas, and we do already change the meaning of extensions sometimes. But pre-allocating a bucket for an unknown set of future extensions seems like a step too far to me.)

Cheers

Simon

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

_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list
ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee