But it's actually *incompatible* with TupleSections, so how shoule
(True,)
be interpreted if both are on?
S
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee
| On Behalf Of Christopher Allen
| Sent: 18 April 2019 04:19
| To: Eric Seidel
| Cc: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Extra Commas
|
| I spoke with Matt, he's fine either way with or without tuples.
|
| I'd prefer "with tuples" for consistency. I use tuples sometimes, but
| don't care about sectioning.
|
| On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eric Seidel wrote:
| >
| > I favor accepting the proposal, with or without tuples. I've been
| writing a bit of Rust recently, and agree with Chris about the ergonomics
| of trailing commas.
| >
| > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:31, Joachim Breitner wrote:
| > > Hi,
| > >
| > > Am Mittwoch, den 17.04.2019, 13:38 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen:
| > > > I gave my recommendation for ExtraCommas, acceptance of the
| > > > original proposal as written. I talk with the proposer almost
| > > > every day so I know where he stands. He still thinks it's worth
| > > > doing and would like to see it accepted. I think ExtraCommas
| > > > merits acceptance. If we can't achieve consensus on it then it
| > > > should be rejected so it gets cleared off the slate. I'm not
| > > > inclined to argue a syntactic extension like this, but I will say
| this:
| > > >
| > > > The proposal captures a nice design element that we've seen work
| > > > very well ergonomically in Rust. We're never going to make the
| > > > same decisions with the same tradeoffs as a totally different
| > > > language but any time there is a relatively isolated "good idea"
| > > > like this, I'd like to see us try to take advantage of that and
| > > > see if it works for us.
| > >
| > > thanks for picking this up.
| > >
| > > The most contentious point, besides whether its worth the bother at
| > > all, was the interaction with TupleSections. Which gives us three
| > > options, I think:
| > > * reject
| > > * accept, covering tuples (and making it conflict with
| > > TupleSections)
| > > * accept, not covering tuples.
| > >
| > > No decision is absolutely wrong, none is obviously right.
| > >
| > > Maybe we should simply do a vote, to get it decided? Simons (as
| > > Chairs), what do you think?
| > >
| > > 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-commi
| > > ttee
| > >
| > > Attachments:
| > > * signature.asc
| > _______________________________________________
| > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
| > ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
| > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committ
| > ee
|
|
|
| --
| Chris Allen
| Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
| _______________________________________________
| ghc-steering-committee mailing list
| ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
| https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
