Thank you to those of you that replied. I'd like to preserve the syntactic distinction that construction synonyms eliminates. Your statements have shifted me to a reject on https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/41 If no one has objections, I'd like to move to a reject as I think enough time has elapsed that it's unlikely to get any defenders. Speak up if you feel something was missed. Regarding https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/42 Summarizing peoples' replies so far: Joachim: In favor, as long as :i does the right thing. Seems under-specified, suggested the following possible relationships between signature of the pattern and the constructor: * May not differ in anything but the constraints. * Must have the same return type. * Must have the same outer type constructor in their return type. * No relation. Roman: In favor of this proposal under the "May not differ in anything but the constraints" policy and against it under any of the other three. Simon PJ: In favor of #42 alone, but no holes. Agrees with Roman that that type of the constructor should be the same as that of the pattern. Simon Marlow: I believe the statement was in favor of #42 contra #41, but I didn't get a sense of how strongly or how Simon felt about the particulars. I agree with and want to highlight Roman's point regarding,
A looser relationship between the constructor function and the pattern makes code significantly harder to read and the proposal doesn't include any justification for such a looser relationship so I would go with the strongest requirement possible.
It seems to me like the respondents so far are in favor of #42, but want the strongest variant. I'd like to move to accept #42 with the "May not differ in anything but the constraints" variant. Any objections? Thank you Joachim for the status update last week. Thanks you for your time everyone, Chris Allen