I have been assigned as the shepherd for proposal #98: Unlifted Newtypes, https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/98 Summary: This proposal suggests lifting the current restriction that newtype kinds are always Type -- that is, TYPE LiftedRep. At its core, that's the entire proposal; the rest is just motivation (which is quite well-written, if you're feeling unmotivated) and consequences. Here are a few of the twists and turns: - The non-Type kinds should be inferred, based on the kind of the wrapped type. In the event of a trivial recursive newtype (e.g., newtype Void = Void Void), the kind would default to lifted, though the user could override this behavior with a kind signature using GADT syntax. The proposal author conjectures that all inhabited unlifted newtypes will have inferrable kinds; I've not tried hard to prove or refute this claim. - The proposal suggests that the Coercible mechanism be extended to deal with unlifted types. This could be handled by generalizing the type of `coerce` to be levity-polymorphic. Note that doing so does not violate levity polymorphism restrictions, because coerce always inlines to a cast, and casts are erased before code generation. If `coerce` is generalized, GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving will work over the new unlifted newtypes. - The proposal suggests that newtypes can indeed be levity-polymorphic: newtype Id# (r :: RuntimeRep) (a :: TYPE r) = MkId# a. This does not appear to violate levity polymorphism restrictions, either, because the MkId# constructor doesn't appear in Core. Any use of this newtype will have to be specialized to a certain RuntimeRep, but that specialization would already be guaranteed by the existing levity polymorphism restrictions. The main drawback in the proposal is that this is the first way users can create their own unlifted types. Accordingly, a user might unwittingly use an unlifted type where they expect laziness; the strictness that, say, an unlifted-variable pattern binding would induce would be a surprise and hard to find. Opinion & recommendation: I am in support of this proposal and propose acceptance. The motivation section in the proposal is compelling, and this seems a natural generalization of existing structures. There are no concrete syntax ramifications. Given the existing levity polymorphism set-up, this proposal seems like an easy win. If we are concerned about unexpected strictness, we could require that all unlifted newtypes be suffixed with one or more hashes, but I do not recommend doing so, instead encouraging library-writers to be sensitive to this problem, giving those authors the latitude to choose the best name for their types. Thanks, Richard