If we choose to revise, I volunteer to implement Modifiers in time for GHC 9.12
Like Joachim, this changes the situation a lot. Thank you for offering.
You are an excellent implementor, and if you say you'll do it, I'm sure you
will. Don't forget that, to be useful for the author, the modifiers need
to be in Template-Haskell-generated syntax too.
With that in mind:
* [ x] Revise the proposal to use modifiers-based syntax and then accept
I'm sure the author will be happy to use modifier syntax -- he just needs
to be sure that doing so won't block the feature and your offer gives him
that surety.
Simon
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 12:40, Vladislav Zavialov
Dear Committee Members,
Our previous discussion regarding #512 was inconclusive.
Thread 1: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2022-November/0029... Thread 2: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2022-December/0030...
#512 is the proposal that introduces per-declaration, per-constructor, and per-field NoFieldSelectors annotations.
I'm not quite sure how to summarize the discussion because everyone seems to have a unique view. But it all revolves around a syntactic issue: should the proposal use pragma-based syntax or modifiers-based syntax?
Here are two facts to inform your opinion:
1. The Modifiers proposal is accepted, and it makes sense to use it for the proposed feature 2. The Modifiers proposal is, however, unimplemented
So at the moment #512 says that we'd first introduce the pragma-based syntax, and when Modifiers are implemented we could deprecate the pragma-based syntax in favor of Modifiers.
I am *strongly* opposed to introducing a feature that we know is destined for deprecation. But not everyone shares this attitude, apparently, so let's vote.
Here are the options. Select all that you find acceptable (multiple-choice): * [ ] Accept the proposal with pragma-based syntax, then deprecate it and switch to modifiers-based syntax * [ ] Accept the proposal with pragma-based syntax, do not switch to modifiers-based syntax * [ ] Revise the proposal to use modifiers-based syntax and then accept * [ ] Reject the proposal regardless of syntax
Before you vote, let me try to sway you towards the "revise" option. If we choose to revise, I volunteer to implement Modifiers in time for GHC 9.12. I believe Modifiers are a splendid idea and I envision many good uses for them.
Vlad _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee