On balance, I think we should accept this proposal and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I agree with this. An incremental improvement is an improvement. And if
need/interest/funding is there can be iterated upon.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 5:11 AM, Joachim Breitner
Hi,
Am Sonntag, dem 12.02.2023 um 14:01 -0500 schrieb Eric Seidel:
I have two minds about this proposal. On the one hand, it seems likely to leave performance on the table compared to the alternatives discussed. But on the other hand, this proposal has already been implemented and validated by Well-Typed, and it seems like a small amount of additional complexity for GHC to adapt. (Though I'd love for someone with more knowledge of GHC internals to opine on the internal complexity.)
On balance, I think we should accept this proposal and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I agree. Especially given that there is an implementation, I see no good reason why we shouldn’t trust the implementors and authors’s good sense in their design choices.
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