I agree with the sentiment here, having Type0 and Type1 as the canonical names would have been preferable in the original proposal.
However, this amendment doesn't touch on that: it only changes the constructor.

We'd still want MkSolo# even if Solo was the synonym, due to the ambiguity described in the amendment.
Renaming the canonical types would be a further, separate amendment to the original proposal. 

I believe we should accept the amendment, and consider a separate amendment later.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:49, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?

Yes. I was questioning the proposal itself rather than the amendment.

S

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:43, Arnaud Spiwack <arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:
Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?

(that being said, I think I agree with your comment that the name of the type ought to have been `Tuple1`, it'd make more sense)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
Well this proposal deepens the commitment to an exception for Solo and Solo#.   But I'm not really objecting, just asking.

Simon

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:34, Arnaud Spiwack <arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:
In favour.

Simon: I don't think your objection pertains to this particular proposal amendment, does it? Rather it's a further change to the original proposal that you'd like to see.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 11:48, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Matthias

I'm generally supportive, but please see my comment exploring a minor alternative.

Simon

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:12, Matthías Páll Gissurarson <mpg@mpg.is> wrote:
Greetings committee!

In [proposal #638](https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638),
@int-index proposes that we introduce a prefix form of MkSolo#, and apparent oversight in proposal #475 [Non-punning list and tuple syntax](https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475). 

Previously, you would write `(# a #)` to construct a `Solo# a`.
But the question is: what would be the prefix form of this constructor?
It can't be `(# #)`, because this is already defined as a constructor of `Unit#`!

This amendment proposes the `MkSolo#` constructor, having us write `MkSolo# a` for the prefix form. The discussion seems unanimous, after care was taken to clarify that a fully applied `MkSolo# a` would still be pretty printed as `(# a #)`, avoiding programmer confusion.

It seems quite straightforward to me, so:

I recommend accepting this amendment to #475.


--
_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list
ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list
ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee


--
Arnaud Spiwack
Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.


--
Arnaud Spiwack
Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.


--
--  Matthías Páll Gissurarson