Hello,
this seems quite reasonable and I think we should accept it. I don't
have a strong preference on if this is positional or not. If it is
positional, it may be nice to associate it with a specific delcaration, so
that you don't have to write the name twice. OTOH, I also see values in
the ability to put all deprecation pragmas in one place, rather than
sprinkling them throughout a declaration.
-Iavor
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:58 AM Vitaly Bragilevsky
Dear Committee,
I was asked to shepherd the proposal #167 (Deprecated Entities, https://github.com/nineonine/ghc-proposals/blob/depr-entities/proposals/0000...). It is proposed to extend DEPRECATED pragma with the two specifiers to disambiguate deprecating named type-level and value-level things. Simon suggested another alternative to make DEPRECATED pragmas positional (in consistency with the deprecating modules). I like the positional alternative more, as it enables more fine-grained control over deprecated entities and can be extended to deprecating unnamed entities (like type class instances). It seems the author is okay with rewriting the proposal, but the current proposal is already implemented. So, the question is: do we want it quick or good? I am not ready to answer this question and come up with the recommendation on the proposal yet.
Please, comment on the following issues: a) which form of the DEPRECATED pragma you prefer, b) do you see any potential drawbacks of the positional form, c) are there any caveats with deprecating instances. Your comments are very welcome either here or on GitHub ( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/167).
Thanks, Vitaly _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee