Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Extra Commas

My understanding of previous discussions was that: "tuples included" means "incompatible with tuple sections" means "they are mutually exclusive to a module." On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:17 AM Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

But it's actually *incompatible* with TupleSections, so how shoule (True,) be interpreted if both are on?

S

| -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee | On Behalf Of Christopher Allen | Sent: 18 April 2019 04:19 | To: Eric Seidel | Cc: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Extra Commas | | I spoke with Matt, he's fine either way with or without tuples. | | I'd prefer "with tuples" for consistency. I use tuples sometimes, but | don't care about sectioning. | | On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eric Seidel wrote: | > | > I favor accepting the proposal, with or without tuples. I've been | writing a bit of Rust recently, and agree with Chris about the ergonomics | of trailing commas. | > | > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:31, Joachim Breitner wrote: | > > Hi, | > > | > > Am Mittwoch, den 17.04.2019, 13:38 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen: | > > > I gave my recommendation for ExtraCommas, acceptance of the | > > > original proposal as written. I talk with the proposer almost | > > > every day so I know where he stands. He still thinks it's worth | > > > doing and would like to see it accepted. I think ExtraCommas | > > > merits acceptance. If we can't achieve consensus on it then it | > > > should be rejected so it gets cleared off the slate. I'm not | > > > inclined to argue a syntactic extension like this, but I will say | this: | > > > | > > > The proposal captures a nice design element that we've seen work | > > > very well ergonomically in Rust. We're never going to make the | > > > same decisions with the same tradeoffs as a totally different | > > > language but any time there is a relatively isolated "good idea" | > > > like this, I'd like to see us try to take advantage of that and | > > > see if it works for us. | > > | > > thanks for picking this up. | > > | > > The most contentious point, besides whether its worth the bother at | > > all, was the interaction with TupleSections. Which gives us three | > > options, I think: | > > * reject | > > * accept, covering tuples (and making it conflict with | > > TupleSections) | > > * accept, not covering tuples. | > > | > > No decision is absolutely wrong, none is obviously right. | > > | > > Maybe we should simply do a vote, to get it decided? Simons (as | > > Chairs), what do you think? | > > | > > 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-commi | > > ttee | > > | > > Attachments: | > > * signature.asc | > _______________________________________________ | > ghc-steering-committee mailing list | > ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committ | > ee | | | | -- | Chris Allen | Currently working on http://haskellbook.com | _______________________________________________ | ghc-steering-committee mailing list | ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com