On #381 I think the idea of visible quantification makes sense every now
and then, but I don't like the concrete details of the proposal: the magic
lifting of terms to types seems quite complicated, and using `type` as an
explicit herald doesn't look nice. So I don't think it's the right design,
and therefore I suggest we reject the proposal.
I am sure that others would disagree as apparently this is an essential
part of dependent Haskell. I have not followed the large discussion that
Richard created, as I am not particularly interested in the design being
proposed, so perhaps someone else should champion this.
Aslo, I am not sure if I am actually on the committee, as I thought my term
had expired? That might be more reason for someone else to pick it up.
-Iavor
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:32 AM Joachim Breitner
Dear Committee,
another status update, because why not.
A small reminder: These mails have two sections, one that’s a delta since last status, but below is a summary of all proposals we have to act on. Please at least scroll through that on each status mail to see if you are listed, maybe you forgot something (or I made a mistake).
So here’s the delta since last month.
* GHC2021 defined! Yay!
* Bylaws merged! Yay
* Simon², Iavor, Richard and me had thus their terms expired.
The Simons, as key members, wanted to continue and were voted back in.
The others are now “expiring”, until the next nomination round concludes. Alejandro is going to run that process.
* we were asked to review these proposals: #390: Fine-grained pragmas, Shepherd: Vitaly
* we have a recommendation from the shepherd about: #368: Warn on prefix/suffix operators (accept)
* we have sent the following proposals back to revision - none -
* we decided about the following proposals #313: Delimited continuation primops (accept) #387: The Char kind (accept) #368: Warn on prefix/suffix operators (accept)
We currently have to act on the following 5 proposals, down by 2.
## Waiting for committee decision
#381: Visible 'forall' in types of terms, Shepherd: Iavor Recommendation was to reject, but discussion went into the more abstract “whither dependent Haskell”. But what does this mean for this proposal? Iavor, can you pick this up again?
#369: Add sumToTag# primop, Shepherd: Eric Essentially accepted, waiting for feedback from the author on final tweaks. Eric, care to nudge the author, or just do it?
#302: \of, Shepherd: Cale No new discussion yet. It seems there was some confusion, which was cleared up by Tom, and Cale said he’ll pick it up now again.
## Waiting for Shepherd action
#367: Clarify primops using unboxed sums, Shepherd: Simon Marlow Simon said he’d reject it on the Github PR. Still waiting for the discussion to start on the mailing list.
#390: Fine-grained pragmas, Shepherd: Vitaly Still kinda new, but a recommendation would be good soon.
Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee