| 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? Yes, I agree; but I'd like the author to feel free to say why he wants a looser variant, if he does. Incidentally, we use the same rule of "differ only in context" in default method signatures http://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/master/users-guide/glasgow_exts.html#defau... Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee- | bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Allen | Sent: 09 April 2017 21:17 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Wrapping up Constructor Synonyms and | Pattern Synonym Signatures | | 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithu | b.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Fpull%2F41&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C34ad4d0 | 7eee744a4ed1508d47f8559fb%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7 | C636273658090436080&sdata=tPaXwm5D5BMML3EZBsX5zN1MLwM4Va%2FBXeMm0vlyH% | 2Bk%3D&reserved=0 | | 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithu | b.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Fpull%2F42&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C34ad4d0 | 7eee744a4ed1508d47f8559fb%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7 | C636273658090436080&sdata=I3HbbipKfDTiWs6xGUSa1mKyU43L8zffneaEdcZKYS4% | 3D&reserved=0 | | 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 | _______________________________________________ | ghc-steering-committee mailing list | ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering- | committee