Hello,
my preference would be to add this to one of the existing extensions
(either "explicit namespaces", or "type level operators").
Iavor
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:26 AM Joachim Breitner
Hi Committee,
the discussion has ebbed down again. I observe that a clear majority is in favor. I don’t think there is a need for a formal vote, so I will proceed with this decision.
Simon M brought up the next issue: Shall we require a separate language extension for this, or can it go under the hood of `ExplicitNamespaces`?
So far Simon M expressed a strong preference for the former, while I am inclined to prefer the latter, and would like to hear a few more opinions on this detail (which certainly would set precedence for future decisions).
Richard brought up the idea of versioned language extensions; that idea can certainly be investigated, but better independently. We have to deal with this proposal with the tools we have.
Greetings, Joachim
Am Mittwoch, den 20.09.2017, 12:23 -0400 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
Hi,
the type fixity proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65) was met with mixed reactions.
* I recommended rejection and Manuel strongly agrees with me. * SPJ does not have strong opinions either way. * Richard is in favor, and Iavor agrees.
Our process says “If consensus is elusive, then we vote, with the Simons retaining veto power.” It looks like this might be such a case. Should we go ahead and vote, or is more discussion likely to sway some of us?
(I guess I can be swayed towards acceptance, especially if this proposal re-uses existing syntactic idioms from export lists with ExplicitNamespaces on.)
Greetings, Joachim
Am Sonntag, den 27.08.2017, 20:16 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
Dear Committee,
Ryan Scott’s proposal to allow fixity declaration to explicitly target values or types has been brought before us:
https://github.com/RyanGlScott/ghc-proposals/blob/type-infix/0000-type-infix...
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/65
I (the secretary) nominates myself as the shepherd, so I can right away continue giving a recommendation.
I propose to reject this proposal. The main reasons are: * it is not clear if there is a real use case for this. Has anyone ever complained about the status quo? The proposal does not motivate the need for a change well enough. (There is a related bug in TH, but that bug can probably simply be fixed.) * The status quo can be sold as a feature, rather than a short-coming. Namely that an operator has a fixed fixity, no matter what namespace it lives in. This matches morally what other languages do: In Gallina, fixity is assigned to names independent of their definition, AFAIK. * There is a non-trivial implementation and education overhead, a weight that is not pulled by the gains.
If we’d design Haskell from scratch, my verdict might possibly be different (but maybe we wouldn’t even allow types and values to share names then…)
Please contradict me or indicate consensus by staying silent.
Greetings, Joachim
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
-- 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 -- 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