Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #273: Local Types, Recommendation: needs revision

I mis-summarized my GitHub comment. I agree that the local modules proposals do not cover `reflection` and brought up a strawman counterproposal just to support `reflection` (and similar usages of classes); the local modules proposals cover the rest of the "would be nice" aspect of local types, in my opinion. Richard

On Nov 25, 2019, at 1:44 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019, at 05:38, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

...

I have posted on the ticket. The proposal text as it now stands does not support the idea of "just in the renamer", and I find the motivation lacking. Do we need all this power just to write `reflection`? Seems like overkill.

Yes, I agree that local types would often be nice. But would that nicety be covered by local modules (either proposal)?

The motivating example here seems like it would require parameterized modules, ie something akin to ML functors. Neither local module proposal currently includes parameterized modules. _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee