Re: [ghc-steering-committee] RecordDotSyntax proposal: next steps

Marked myself AYE for the choices.

On Mar 13, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

Thanks. You can’t vote if you don’t understand the alternatives! And if you can’t maybe others can’t – or will do so based on different understandings of the same thing. That would be Bad.

I’m not well positioned to fix this because I don’t know where the ambiguities are. Would you like to ask some clarifying questions?

Simon

From: Simon Marlow Sent: 13 March 2020 17:30 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: Christopher Allen ; Cale Gibbard ; ghc-steering-committee Subject: Re: RecordDotSyntax proposal: next steps

It's still a bit hard (IMO) to understand what precise changes each proposal would make to the syntax, but I don't want to hold things up so I've added an AYE.

Cheers

Simon

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:

Chris, Cale, Simon I wonder if you might have a moment to respond to this email? Thanks Simon

From: Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> Sent: 09 March 2020 09:56 To: ghc-steering-committee mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org> Cc: Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> Subject: RE: RecordDotSyntax proposal: next steps

Colleagues Thanks for your various replies. I have Added a couple more examples (please check) Split (C2a) and (C2b) – thank you Joachim for filling out the list. Add a Notes section that identifies some consequences, hopefully objectively. Added a list at the end where you can add your AYE when happy. Can you review, and Christopher, Richard, Cale, Simon, Eric, Alejandro, Arnaud: please add AYE or suggest further changes. This is painstaking but I think it is clarifying. I have found writing out the examples is quite helpful. Feel free to suggest more if you think there are some cases that are unclear. Thanks Simon

From: Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> Sent: 06 March 2020 17:59 To: ghc-steering-committee mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org> Cc: Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> Subject: RecordDotSyntax proposal: next steps

Colleagues I’m sorry to have been dragging my feet on the records proposal. First there was half term holiday, and then the ICFP deadline, so I’ve been out of action for several weeks. It’s pretty clear that we are not going to achieve 100% consensus, so the right thing to do is to vote, using the single-transferrable-vote scheme that Joachim runs. It’s worth striving for consensus, because the debate can be clarifying (and has been!). But I don’t regard non-consensus as a failure. These things are all judgement calls, and people’s judgement can legitimately differ. Voting lets us nevertheless reach a conclusion. So here’s what I propose I’ve put up a list of choices for us to vote on here https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1MgovHRUUNjbuM4nM8qEe308MfbAYRh2Q8PxFHl7iY74%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C22fa0d7eb4444f6487f408d7c77421bc%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637197173899607531&sdata=RXQVT9CP1IPjbGdDpuInQ%2BHvqG1%2FScBL9OqKf12g12s%3D&reserved=0, informed by our most recent email exchanges. The first thing is to ensure that this list is Complete: no choices that people really want are omitted. Clear and unambiguous. When we vote we must know exactly what we are voting for! Can you all respond about that, including “Aye” if you think it is both complete and clear. Once we are all satisfied, I’ll invite you to vote. The easiest way to do so might be to edit the Google doc directly, so there’s a single point of reference. Please also let me know if you think we should be doing anything else. Thanks! Simon