Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Bundling patterns with type synonyms (#28)

I'll try to gather up the principal reasons for rejection and do so, thank you!

On Nov 5, 2018, at 07:53, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Hi,

looks like we are rejecting this. Christopher, would you care to close the pull request with a nice and constructive message for the authors?

Thanks, Joachim

Am Sonntag, den 30.09.2018, 21:08 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:

...

I agree with rejecting. I think this should be part of a larger proposal to introduce modules.

Thanks, Richard

...

On Sep 30, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Christopher Allen wrote:

I think based on what transpired in this thread and on the GitHub PR, the proposal should be rejected. My reasoning:

- There was a more general way to solve the problem outlined by Simon. - The complexity doesn't pay for itself, esp. given how particular the problem it solves is.

What do y'all think? On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 10:35 AM Joachim Breitner wrote:

...

Hi,

we have disagreement here. Chris, would you steer us towards consensus?

Cheers, Joachim

Am Samstag, den 23.06.2018, 23:19 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:

...

Agreed. Beyond my posted technical reservations, I believe that a better solution is out there.

Richard

...

On Jun 23, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Hi,

Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2018, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen: > Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28 > > > I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of > open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall > complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.

I agree with Simon that might not take the language in the direction we want to take it.

In fact, if we had PatternSynonyms and ExplicitNamespaces back when Haskell was first specified, we might not have the T(K) syntax at all, and just a flat, explicit list of names, possibly requiring explicit namespace qualifier to disambiguate? Things like deprecating exports would have been easier then…

So while I follow the motivation of the proposal, and I don’t have concrete other solution to offer, I am inclined to reject it: The problem it is solving does not seem to be too urgent, and my gut feeling says that there might be something better down the road.

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

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

-- 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

-- 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

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee -- 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