Am 05.05.2018 um 05:42 schrieb Simon Marlow <marlowsd@gmail.com>:SimonCheersYes ScopedTypeVariables might break some code if you enable it, but I think we should all just enable it everywhere and move on. That leaves the cases where you might be working in some legacy codebase where you want to make a small change and are tempted to enable PatternSignatures because ScopedTypeVariables breaks the code somewhere else - just do without it, or enable ScopedTypeVariables and fix the breakage. I am not sympathetic to your plight :)I'm slightly against this proposal. I think the reasons you gave *are* sufficient to reject it, moreover there's the additional overhead of another extension - complexity in the compiler, and cognitive overhead for programmers. Extensions aren't cheap, or at least they're not cheap enough to justify making extensions for subsets of existing extensions to cover narrow use cases like this._______________________________________________On 1 May 2018 at 01:13, Christopher Allen <cma@bitemyapp.com> wrote:This proposal splits out the faculty for assigning type signatures to
variables destructured out of a pattern from ScopedTypeVariables.
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/ 119/
My recommendation is to accept the proposal, with some reservations.
ScopedTypeVariables is one of the more popular candidates for "this
should always be on regardless." The cases in which STV would be
useful greatly outnumber the downsides Gundry cited in my experience.
My impression of this upheld by my industrial experience and that of
the other industrial programmers I've talked to in the past about
ScopedTypeVariables. Almost any time it is brought up almost
invariably the conversation touches on, "why isn't this on by
default?"
I understand STV could break programs with overlapping names that are
intended to be independent type variables, I don't presume to litigate
or resolve that issue here.
Extension fatigue is wearing on the Haskell users I regularly interact
with, especially as it's unclear if Haskell Prime will convene and
consolidate commonly used extensions into the core language.
In my view these aren't sufficient reason to reject the proposed
extension on the merits so my recommendation is to accept it as-is. I
think the case for this proposal is particularly strong as it would
clean up the extension's presently somewhat confusing relationship
with STV.
If no objections are raised, it should be assumed that this has the
assent of the committee.
--
Chris Allen
_______________________________________________
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