Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review: Eval class, Shephard: Richard

I'm not convinced either. Generally if a silent `seq` is biting you the problem was partiality and not insufficient lightness of the soul. It seems like it would change sharing behavior as well, which is not good. This affects a lot of code with unreachable branches they can't reasonably get rid of. Often this is code that is performance sensitive and depends on the particulars of how things are getting shared. On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Iavor Diatchki wrote:

Hello,

I am not very convinced about the utility of this proposal. Also, I think that the current specification could use more details about how the system should work. I wrote a comment on the pull-request thread with more details.

-Iavor

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

...

Hi,

this is your secretary speaking:

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27 was brought before the committee. I propose Richard as the Shepherd.

Richard, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process

I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you.

Greetings, 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

-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com