On Sun, Sep 11, 2022, at 17:30, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
Would it be possible to conclude this discussion now? And (I earnestly hope) accept the proposal? I don't think it's controversial, and it barely needs a proposal anyway (since it's mainly about GHC internals).
Yes, sorry. I believe we have consensus on the proposed changes themselves, but were stalled on the question of how to cleanly define the public API boundaries of GHC-the-library. This proposal clearly specifies which types are public and which are internal, and we have two related proposals exploring the question of how to specify public API boundaries: * https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/524 * https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/528 My view remains that the exact mechanism of public/internal separation does not need to be fleshed out in order to accept this proposal. It can be hashed out in parallel with the implementation. Richard, you were the main voice expressing concern about public API boundaries. Can we just merge this proposal and continue the public API discussion in #524 and #528?