Dear Committee, This proposal looks good to me. The author has done a lot of work to formalize the new rules, and has done a check that no packages using arrow syntax would be broken by this modification. Thus, I recommend we accept this proposal. Apart from the general discussion, I think it might be worth focusing on a specific part of the design: the use of a couple of type families to express "arrow stacks". I am not aware of other GHC extensions depending on particular type families. - As the author discusses, these type families ought to be wired-in, so they can benefit from improvement during type checking. Is this a good choice? It looks to be, but other may have a different opinion. - Would this type family pose a problem for optimization / specialization / ...? Kind regards, Alejandro El lun., 4 may. 2020 a las 23:08, Joachim Breitner (< mail@joachim-breitner.de>) escribió:
Dear Committee
I took the liberty to re-asssign #303 to Alejandro; the authors rightfully asked for progress in the discussion thread.
Cheers, Joachim
Am Freitag, den 03.01.2020, 15:20 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
Dear Committee,
this is your secretary speaking:
Constraint based arrow notation has been proposed by Aleix King https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/303
https://github.com/lexi-lambda/ghc-proposals/blob/constraint-based-arrow-not...
I propose Chris Done as the shepherd.
Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
Thanks, 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-committee