Dear Committee,

I think Malte and Rodrigo have responded, but we are still lacking input from 3 other committee members.

My opinion on Legacy vs. Deprecated for "bad idea to use this extension": Per definition, Legacy sounds good to me, even if I was initially surprised to see it used that way.
I think the "problem" here is that I usually associate "Deprecated" in software with "bad idea to use this and it will be removed at some point", whereas "Legacy" I associate with "using this extension means you'll accumulate technical debt" and the "bad idea" part overwhelmingly suggests Deprecated.
Maybe "Phase Out" is a better alias for Legacy for this purpose? Either way, this is splitting hairs; there are probably bigger fish to fry.

Sebastian

Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2026 um 16:56 Uhr schrieb Adam Gundry <adam@well-typed.com>:
Dear Committee,

If you haven't already commented on #738, please take a look and check
you agree with the categorization:

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/738

In particular I believe we are waiting for responses from:

  - Malte
  - Matthías
  - Rodrigo
  - Jakob
  - Erik

Please try to respond by *15th September*.

One particular point of discussion that arose is whether OverloadedLists
should be Legacy or Deprecated
(https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/738#discussion_r3728905390).
Simon M argues we should more aggressively use Deprecated to warn people
away from extensions which we believe are bad ideas; I argue that Legacy
is a better compromise for cases that are in use and not actively in
need of removal. Please do chime in with your views!

Cheers,

Adam




On 04/08/2026 21:29, Adam Gundry wrote:
> Dear Committee,
>
> I encourage you to take a look at Trevis' proposal to categorise the
> stability of more language extensions, by amending the existing
> categorization in proposal #669:
>
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/738
>
> I think we should accept this in principle. However, this proposal is
> somewhat atypical as it consists of many small decisions about
> individual extensions. Thus I suggest it may be easiest to comment on
> specific lines of the MR and discuss any changes there. Once more people
> have opined on the categorization, we can confirm whether there is
> consensus to accept.
>
> When reviewing, please bear in mind the definitions of the categories as
> set out in proposal #601 (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-
> proposals/blob/master/proposals/0601-extension-lifecycle-
> framework.md#21-categories). Note in particular that use of Deprecated
> extensions should result in warnings, and that declaring an extension
> Stable implies that it is highly unlikely to be subject to breaking
> changes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> On 24/07/2026 11:02, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> Trevis Elser submitted proposal #738:
>>
>> Amend #669 to categorize more language extensions <https://github.com/
>> ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/738>
>>
>> for the committee to review.
>>
>> I'd like to nominate *Adam Gundry* as the shepherd.
>>
>> Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in the committee processes
>> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/
>> README.rst#9committee-process-for-responding-to-a-proposal>.
>>
>> If possible, please aim to make a recommendation by *7 August 2026*.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Simon
>
>
>

--
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

_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org