Hi, Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 21:04 +0800 schrieb Moritz Angermann:
Joachim,
the main driving motivation is that we really want libraries to stop building if their dependencies have introduced new methods.
So we want this because we introduce extra fields in a dependency and thus "silently" break all consumers? Not because people write new green-field code and end up ignoring the warning?
That is my understanding, yes. Oleg, who suggested this originally (I just wrote it up) says (see motivation section of the proposal)
not having -Wsevere=missing-methods by default essentially prevents any (true) breakage assessment of adding new, non-defaulted members to existing type-classes.
Wouldn't this be something that PVP should guard against? Adding new fields should result in a new major version, because it's technically a breaking change?
Yeah, probably in a world where everyone follows the PVP perfectly, we wouldn’t have this discussion. Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 14:38 +0100 schrieb Chris Dornan:
If I understand you rightly, you are arguing that any legacy packages that would flag severe warnings should now fail to compile, even if they are marked as being (say) Haskell2010?
I’m not arguing that we should do this, but I am arguing that this is the question we are supposed to decide here. (I’m personally not decided
If the impetus for the proposal was driven by observed problematic failures of packaged code that could be caught by these warnings then, for me, there would be a discussion to be had.
My understanding, based on the motivation section, is that this _is_ the impetus. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/