Hi John, (I'm not on the steering committee, but since you asked about HasField...) The current status of the draft proposal to which you linked is that I'm still planning to finish it off and open a discussion PR, but that it needs spare time and dedicated attention, which is difficult to find! I'm pretty happy with the general idea but the details need some work. Hopefully I'll make progress on this at ZuriHac next month, but I don't want to guarantee anything. If anyone would be willing to help finish off the proposal, I'd be happy to chat. An issue that is not discussed in the proposal, but which we may want to reconsider, is that OverloadedRecordUpdate as currently envisaged is fork-like: it changes the meaning of record update syntax but both the traditional and overloaded forms have advantages. Thus it might be sensible to have a distinct syntax for overloaded updates. I've cleared the merge request milestone as it is no longer realistic to get the implementation into 9.4.1. All the best, Adam On 11/05/2022 21:56, John Walker wrote:
Hello Committee, I was wondering if there are any near to middle term plans to move forward with hasField redesign which I believe is an enabler for setter with record dot syntax. The ticket (https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/3257 https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/3257) has a milestone of 9.4.1 and it looks like the proposal is done (https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc-proposals/blob/hasfield-redesign/proposals... https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc-proposals/blob/hasfield-redesign/proposals...) pending feedback some time ago but hasn't got to discussions yet (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/0 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/0). thanks John
-- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/ Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England