I support this.  

The status of the implementation, at least on my end. is stalled a bit, as I've been really busy with work.    Overall though, Ryan has a version that works for STM (although it is against an older GHC and mixed up with other experiments he is working on).   I also have a branch, where we've implemented the basic primitives, and started work on the front-end, but there is quite a bit to do still (e.g., we haven't really done code the code generation changes).  I'd say there are a bunch of interesting implementation questions that we need to answer, but in terms of the user-facing language changes, the proposal seems sound to me.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:13 AM Ryan Newton <rrnewton@gmail.com> wrote:
Reboot!  This has long sat idle, but I propose to now formally start the committee discussion period: mandatory 4 weeks, closing at end of day March 10th, or earlier if consensus occurs.  Let's use this email thread for that discussion.  In this mail I summarize public discussion and argue for "accept".

In short, the proposal adds a way to have multiple mutable fields within a data-constructor, without the indirection of using IORef.  Second to "linear types", this proposal generated the most total comments during public discussion (107).  This level of discussion was good -- given that accepted GHC proposals so far are mostly syntactic (or API tweaks), this would be the first with major compiler backend & runtime consequences.  

Ed Kmett and Ryan Yates have demonstrated the applicability of this concept to data-structure implementation.  (Indeed, I think there's a good reason that almost all languages mutation with mutation are implemented so as to allow a single heap object to have multiple mutable fields within it.) During the public discussion, questions were raised about interactions with other features and implementation strategy -- in particularly changes to core.  But I believe that all major concerns were eventually answered.

  -Ryan

P.S. Iavor, Trevor, and Ryan Yates were all working on implementation of this feature at various points.  Not sure what the current status of implementation efforts are.


On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
Dear Committee,

this is your secretary speaking:

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8
was brought before the committee, by our own Simon Marlow.

I propose Ryan Newton as the Shepherd, because he asked for it :-)

Ryan, 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