Ryan,

I am generally in favour of this proposal — it appears to be a useful clean up.

However, I like to make two remarks on the process here — sorry if that appears nitpicky, but I think, it makes a difference.

(1) To keep the committee discussion smooth and quick, we did agree that the committee discussion is only on the proposal document. If any public discussion is relevant to the committee decision, it ought to be integrated into the proposal document (by the person who wrote the proposal) before the committee discussion. Specifically, I have no idea what you are talking about with Options (1) - (4) on that thread.

(2) The Shepherd ought to propose a decision in favour or against the proposal. This is the default decision if nobody on the committee disagrees. I think, this is a useful policy as it serves as a forcing function for the discussion. So, what is your default decision?

Manuel

Ryan Newton <rrnewton@indiana.edu>:

Dear Committee,

The public discussion for this one has happened, now for 4 weeks of committee discussion and final accept/reject.

In that public discussion, you can see on Jan 11 options broken down as (1),(2),(3), with this proposal being (1).  This seems to have stopped in a weird place where there was some substantial argument for (2) and (3) in the latter half of the comments, but the proposal is for (1).

Richard, one bit that threw me off was this:

"we should require the bang even on bare variables, but that would break a lot of code I think."

Because that makes it seem like in spite of this cleaning-up proposal, GHC still has a basically inconsistent position on how to interpret variable-bindings of unlifted kind in patterns.

Discuss?

  -Ryan



On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
Hi,

it is by Richard, I just got the URL wrong. The right pull request is
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35
sorry for that.

Using this thread is fine.

Joachim

Am Dienstag, den 11.07.2017, 10:58 -0400 schrieb Ryan Newton:
> Just to clarify, this is proposed by a user "winterland".  I.e. not
> Richard, right? In the process document it is the author that "brings
> it before the committee" correct?
>
> I checked and it looks like our process document does not specify the
> means of our committee discussion.  I propose we discuss this one
> right here on this thread, which we've already got sitting in our
> inboxes.
>
> Best,
>   -Ryan
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breit
> ner.de> wrote:
> > 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@joachim-breitner.de
> >   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> >
>
>
--
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  mail@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org
_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list
ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee


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