I'm inclined to option #2. I'll report back if I hear from Matt on
what he would prefer.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:31 PM Joachim Breitner
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-committee
-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com