Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Proposal: Binding existential type variables (#96)

Yes, I think we should reject in favor of #126.

On Jun 16, 2018, at 4:33 AM, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:

Sounds good to me.

Manuel

...

Am 16.06.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Joachim Breitner :

Hi,

Am Samstag, den 02.06.2018, 20:08 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner:

...

Am Sonntag, den 25.03.2018, 23:23 +0100 schrieb Roman Leshchinskiy:

...

The proposal is to add a way to name existential type variables in pattern matches: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/96.

since this proposal has been proposed, we have two new related (and partly competing) proposals (#126 and #128), had some good discussion and there is even talk of writing a paper. In light of that, I think we should either reject #96 in the current form, or at least bump it back to the discussion phase until we have settled on a final form.

in the meantime we even have a paper that describes #126 and #128: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.03476 which also describes why #96 may not be the best way forward.

I asked at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/96#issuecomment-39658180... if anyone still feels attached to that proposal, and nobody responded. Hence, I think we can safely reject this proposal (and focus on the other two).

Roman, do you agree?

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

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