Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #319: NoFallibleDo proposal, Shepherd: Eric Seidel

Hi all, My wife and I just checked into the hospital to have our second child, so I’m going to be short on time for committee duties for a few weeks. I think it would be best to reassign this proposal so we don’t keep the authors waiting. I reviewed the proposal over the weekend and left some thoughts on GitHub. I’m supportive of the direction — partial patterns in do-notation are more consistent with the rest of the language — but I thought it would be a stronger proposal if we had a syntax for controlling the failure behavior. This would give people who currently rely on the MonadFail desugaring a cleaner migration path. John has another proposal (#327 iirc) exploring how that syntax might look, I suggested building on top of that proposal or combining the two. Eric Sent from my iPhone

On May 1, 2020, at 04:04, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Dear Committee,

this is your secretary speaking:

NoFallibleDo proposal has been proposed by Cale https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/319 https://github.com/obsidiansystems/ghc-proposals/blob/no-fallible-do/proposa...

I propose Eric Seidel as the shepherd.

Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process

Thanks, 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