Dear all,
This proposal suggests adding syntax for a general notion of modifiers,
like the ones we’ve been talking about lately affecting linearity or
matchability of arrows. For example, if linear types and unsaturated
families are accepted as they stand, we would have `Int #1 -> @U Bool` (or
something like that), whereas with this proposal we would have the more
uniform `Int %1 %Unmatchable -> Bool`.
Since the amount of modifiers is likely to increase in the future, I think
it’s a great idea to agree and reserve such syntax, instead of coming up
with different ways on each proposal. I thus recommend acceptance of this
proposal.
The proposal itself:
(1) introduces syntax for modifiers in types and defines how to type/kind
check them,
(2) reserved such syntax for other uses in declarations and terms.
I think the proposal still has its merits only with (1), even though I lean
towards accepting both parts of it.
Regards,
Alejandro
On 21 Nov 2020 at 10:07:18, Joachim Breitner
Dear Committee,
this is your secretary speaking:
A syntax for modifiers has been proposed by Richard Eisenberg (this time it’s true) https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/370
I’ll propose Alejandro as the shepherd, as he has looked at i t in detail already.
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