Re: [ghc-steering-committee] CUSKs and StandaloneTypeSignatures

I agree that implementation bugs are not what we want to worry about. But straightforward or not, StandaloneKindSignature's design has barely been tested. It wouldn't be the first extension that we believed to be unproblematic (I do believe it is!) and be surprised that there are some dark corners. So I'd say let's give it a little time. On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:29 PM Richard Eisenberg wrote:

I think StandaloneKindSignatures should be included. It's true that there may be implementation bugs, but the design of them is really quite straightforward, so I don't expect design bugs. And I think it's design bugs that should hinder inclusion, much more than implementation bugs (of which I know none, at the moment).

Richard

On Dec 4, 2020, at 9:15 AM, Spiwack, Arnaud wrote:

CUSKs need to go. I see no place for them in the defaults.

I want StandaloneKindSignature in the default too, but I think that they are not battle-tested enough to be included this time around.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:45 PM Alejandro Serrano Mena wrote:

...

Maybe some part of this discussion got lost.

Simon PJ writes:

Let's *not* have CUSKs. We are trying to get rid of it... it'd be deeply

...

strange to "bless" it in GHC2020.

StandaloneKindSignatures is clearly the Right Thing. I'm sure we'll want it long term.

It's a very graceful fit with PolyKinds.

I would really like StandaloneTypeSignatures to be part of the default, and remove CUSKs. Thoughts on this? Is it too early?

Regards, Alejandro _______________________________________________ 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