Yes, I agree that we need functions in both directions. I support this proposal.

Richard

On Mar 8, 2019, at 12:03 PM, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree that we should probably accept this.

I wonder if there are cases where one might one to go in the other direction, i.e., do we also need a function:  `Code a -> Q (TExp a)`?

-Iavor

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:51 AM Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org> wrote:

Yes, I agree.

 

Simon

 

From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Vitaly Bragilevsky
Sent: 08 March 2019 06:41
To: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org>
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] #195: Make Q (TExp a) into a newtype, rec: accept

 

Hi everyone, 

 

Matthew Pickering proposed to make Q (TExp a) into a newtype called Code. 

 

It looks like the motivation behind this proposal boils down to the convenience of writing instances which seems a good thing. The minor problem I see is the proposed name "Code" as it looks a little bit too abstract for Typed Template Haskell expressions. Nevertheless, I recommend to accept the proposal as it is. Silence is understood as agreement.

 

Regards, 

Vitaly

_______________________________________________
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