I agree (in fact, I'd say that it's the whole point of language editions). Hence my question :-) .

I don't, however, agree that we should make arguments on the grounds of the swiss-army-knife philosophy (“make it possible to customise GHC to everybody's desires”). I think that 2023 has been a convincing demonstration that this philosophy hasn't served us well, and has been counterproductive. Actually, I was under the impression that all the discourse about basing our stability guarantees on language editions was a definite adoption of the newer point of view. It does seem, though, that we're not yet in complete agreement there.

I'm content to concede here, but you'll have noticed in my recent interventions that I'm increasingly prudent about entropy-increasing changes (I'm worried, I guess, about death by a thousand paper cuts). I'd rather changes that we accept have a purpose. Does this one have a purpose?