Dear Ghc-Steering-Committee Any further views about the base-library plan https://github.com/Ericson2314/tech-proposals/blob/ghc-base-libraries/propos...? We have Torsten's helpful patch https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/602to our GHC Proposal template. Any views about that? RSVP. If you want to see any changes, can you offer concrete text that you'd prefer to see? I'd like to indicate our assent as a committee -- but only if we are all happy! CLC is voting in favour -- I expect a result in a day or two. RSVP. I'll take silence as assent by say Thursday. Yell if you need more time. Simon On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 10:03, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear GHC Steering Committee
Over the last few weeks, Ben Gamari and I have been discussing with Andrew and Julian from the Core Libraries Committee how to make the Core Libraries Committee and the GHC developers work together more fluidly; and that includes the GHC Steering Committee.
We now have a fairly well fleshed out proposal here. https://github.com/Ericson2314/tech-proposals/blob/ghc-base-libraries/propos...
I hope you like it. As far as this committee is concerned there are two particular points of note
1. We propose a new package, *ghc-experimental*, which depends on *base*. Many GHC proposals involve defining new types and functions. The idea is that these would initially be in *ghc-experimental*. After they stabilise and become widely adopted, the author (or anyone else) can make a CLC proposal to move them to *base*, which has much stronger stability guarantees. 2. Section 5.1 suggests a mechanism to involve CLC members in proposals that involve new functions and types, at an earlier stage. Some involve *changing *existing types and functions. It is clearly unproductive for us to debate such things at length, and only *then *to land it on the CLC.
Section 5.1 also suggests that proposals should explicitly (in a separate section) call out
- What new types and functions it defines - What existing types and functions are changed.
We should add that to our template.
At the moment we are just sharing the proposal with relevant stakeholders (yourselves, CLC, stack folk, cabal folk etc), so that we can polish any rough edges before making it public.
So, any views? Personally I think this is a Big Step Forward.
Simon