In favour. Simon: I don't think your objection pertains to this particular proposal amendment, does it? Rather it's a further change to the original proposal that you'd like to see. On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 11:48, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Matthias

I'm generally supportive, but please see my comment exploring a minor alternative https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638#issuecomment-1988147... .

Simon

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:12, Matthías Páll Gissurarson wrote:

...

Greetings committee!

In [proposal #638]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638), @int-index proposes that we introduce a prefix form of MkSolo#, and apparent oversight in proposal #475 [Non-punning list and tuple syntax]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475).

Previously, you would write `(# a #)` to construct a `Solo# a`. But the question is: what would be the prefix form of this constructor? It can't be `(# #)`, because this is already defined as a constructor of `Unit#`!

This amendment proposes the `MkSolo#` constructor, having us write `MkSolo# a` for the prefix form. The discussion seems unanimous, after care was taken to clarify that a fully applied `MkSolo# a` would still be pretty printed as `(# a #)`, avoiding programmer confusion.

It seems quite straightforward to me, so:

I recommend accepting this amendment to #475.

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/ _______________________________________________ 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

-- Arnaud Spiwack Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.

Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you? (that being said, I think I agree with your comment that the name of the type ought to have been `Tuple1`, it'd make more sense) On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Well this proposal deepens the commitment to an exception for Solo and Solo#. But I'm not really objecting, just asking.

Simon

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:34, Arnaud Spiwack wrote:

...

In favour.

Simon: I don't think your objection pertains to this particular proposal amendment, does it? Rather it's a further change to the original proposal that you'd like to see.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 11:48, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Matthias

I'm generally supportive, but please see my comment exploring a minor alternative https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638#issuecomment-1988147... .

Simon

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:12, Matthías Páll Gissurarson wrote:

...

Greetings committee!

In [proposal #638]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638), @int-index proposes that we introduce a prefix form of MkSolo#, and apparent oversight in proposal #475 [Non-punning list and tuple syntax]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475).

Previously, you would write `(# a #)` to construct a `Solo# a`. But the question is: what would be the prefix form of this constructor? It can't be `(# #)`, because this is already defined as a constructor of `Unit#`!

This amendment proposes the `MkSolo#` constructor, having us write `MkSolo# a` for the prefix form. The discussion seems unanimous, after care was taken to clarify that a fully applied `MkSolo# a` would still be pretty printed as `(# a #)`, avoiding programmer confusion.

It seems quite straightforward to me, so:

I recommend accepting this amendment to #475.

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/ _______________________________________________ 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

-- Arnaud Spiwack Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.

-- Arnaud Spiwack Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.

I agree with the sentiment here, having Type0 and Type1 as the canonical names would have been preferable in the original proposal. However, this amendment doesn't touch on that: it only changes the constructor. We'd still want MkSolo# even if Solo was the synonym, due to the ambiguity described in the amendment. Renaming the canonical types would be a further, separate amendment to the original proposal. I believe we should accept the amendment, and consider a separate amendment later. On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:49, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the constructors' name.

...

Which you don't propose to change, do you?

Yes. I was questioning the proposal itself rather than the amendment.

S

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:43, Arnaud Spiwack wrote:

...

Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?

(that being said, I think I agree with your comment that the name of the type ought to have been `Tuple1`, it'd make more sense)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Well this proposal deepens the commitment to an exception for Solo and Solo#. But I'm not really objecting, just asking.

Simon

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:34, Arnaud Spiwack wrote:

...

In favour.

Simon: I don't think your objection pertains to this particular proposal amendment, does it? Rather it's a further change to the original proposal that you'd like to see.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 11:48, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Matthias

I'm generally supportive, but please see my comment exploring a minor alternative https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638#issuecomment-1988147... .

Simon

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:12, Matthías Páll Gissurarson wrote:

...

Greetings committee!

In [proposal #638]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638), @int-index proposes that we introduce a prefix form of MkSolo#, and apparent oversight in proposal #475 [Non-punning list and tuple syntax]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475).

Previously, you would write `(# a #)` to construct a `Solo# a`. But the question is: what would be the prefix form of this constructor? It can't be `(# #)`, because this is already defined as a constructor of `Unit#`!

This amendment proposes the `MkSolo#` constructor, having us write `MkSolo# a` for the prefix form. The discussion seems unanimous, after care was taken to clarify that a fully applied `MkSolo# a` would still be pretty printed as `(# a #)`, avoiding programmer confusion.

It seems quite straightforward to me, so:

I recommend accepting this amendment to #475.

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/ _______________________________________________ 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

-- Arnaud Spiwack Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.

-- Arnaud Spiwack Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/

There seems to be general consensus to accept the amendment, apart from Simon's comment on a minor alternative. Simon, are you OK with accepting the amendment, and leaving the minor alternative to a future proposal? On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 22:08, Adam Gundry wrote:

I also agree that we should accept. We need some name for the unit unboxed tuple data constructor, and MkSolo# seems to fit with what we currently have.

Simon's suggestion that we rethink the naming of the tuple type constructors seems to be a separate question. I think it warrants a new proposal/amendment if anyone feels strongly enough, rather than blocking this proposal, especially given that the original proposal's type names are already implemented.

Adam

On 14/03/2024 10:33, Matthías Páll Gissurarson wrote:

...

I agree with the sentiment here, having Type0 and Type1 as the canonical names would have been preferable in the original proposal. However, this amendment doesn't touch on that: it only changes the constructor.

We'd still want MkSolo# even if Solo was the synonym, due to the ambiguity described in the amendment. Renaming the canonical types would be a further, separate amendment to the original proposal.

I believe we should accept the amendment, and consider a separate amendment later.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:49, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?

Yes. I was questioning the proposal itself rather than the amendment.

S

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:43, Arnaud Spiwack mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:

Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?

(that being said, I think I agree with your comment that the name of the type ought to have been `Tuple1`, it'd make more sense)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Well this proposal deepens the commitment to an exception for Solo and Solo#. But I'm not really objecting, just asking.

Simon

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:34, Arnaud Spiwack mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:

In favour.

Simon: I don't think your objection pertains to this particular proposal amendment, does it? Rather it's a further change to the original proposal that you'd like to see.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 11:48, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Matthias

I'm generally supportive, but please see my comment exploring a minor alternative < https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638#issuecomment-1988147... .

Simon

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:12, Matthías Páll Gissurarson mailto:mpg@mpg.is> wrote:

Greetings committee!

In [proposal #638]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638 < https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638>), @int-index proposes that we introduce a prefix form of MkSolo#, and apparent oversight in proposal #475 [Non-punning list and tuple syntax]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475 < https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475>).

Previously, you would write `(# a #)` to construct a `Solo# a`. But the question is: what would be the prefix form of this constructor? It can't be `(# #)`, because this is already defined as a constructor of `Unit#`!

This amendment proposes the `MkSolo#` constructor, having us write `MkSolo# a` for the prefix form. The discussion seems unanimous, after care was taken to clarify that a fully applied `MkSolo# a` would still be pretty printed as `(# a #)`, avoiding programmer confusion.

It seems quite straightforward to me, so:

I recommend accepting this amendment to #475.

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/

-- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/

Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England

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

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/

The amendment has been accepted, with the minor alternative left for a future amendment. On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 18:22, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

Simon, are you OK with accepting the amendment, and leaving the minor alternative to a future proposal?

yes

Simon

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 22:19, Matthías Páll Gissurarson wrote:

...

There seems to be general consensus to accept the amendment, apart from Simon's comment on a minor alternative.

Simon, are you OK with accepting the amendment, and leaving the minor alternative to a future proposal?

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 22:08, Adam Gundry wrote:

...

I also agree that we should accept. We need some name for the unit unboxed tuple data constructor, and MkSolo# seems to fit with what we currently have.

Simon's suggestion that we rethink the naming of the tuple type constructors seems to be a separate question. I think it warrants a new proposal/amendment if anyone feels strongly enough, rather than blocking this proposal, especially given that the original proposal's type names are already implemented.

Adam

...

I agree with the sentiment here, having Type0 and Type1 as the canonical names would have been preferable in the original proposal. However, this amendment doesn't touch on that: it only changes the constructor.

We'd still want MkSolo# even if Solo was the synonym, due to the ambiguity described in the amendment. Renaming the canonical types would be a further, separate amendment to the original proposal.

I believe we should accept the amendment, and consider a separate amendment later.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:49, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?

Yes. I was questioning the proposal itself rather than the amendment.

S

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:43, Arnaud Spiwack mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:

Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?

(that being said, I think I agree with your comment that the name of the type ought to have been `Tuple1`, it'd make more sense)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Well this proposal deepens the commitment to an exception for Solo and Solo#. But I'm not really objecting, just asking.

Simon

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:34, Arnaud Spiwack mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:

In favour.

Simon: I don't think your objection pertains to this particular proposal amendment, does it? Rather it's a further change to the original proposal that you'd like to see.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 11:48, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Matthias

I'm generally supportive, but please see my comment exploring a minor alternative < https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638#issuecomment-1988147... .

Simon

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:12, Matthías Páll Gissurarson mailto:mpg@mpg.is> wrote:

Greetings committee!

In [proposal #638]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638 < https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638>), @int-index proposes that we introduce a prefix form of MkSolo#, and apparent oversight in proposal #475 [Non-punning list and tuple syntax]( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475 < https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475>).

Previously, you would write `(# a #)` to construct a `Solo# a`. But the question is: what would be the prefix form of this constructor? It can't be `(# #)`, because this is already defined as a constructor of `Unit#`!

This amendment proposes the `MkSolo#` constructor, having us write `MkSolo# a` for

On 14/03/2024 10:33, Matthías Páll Gissurarson wrote: the

...

prefix form. The discussion seems unanimous, after care was taken to clarify that a fully applied `MkSolo# a` would still be pretty printed as `(# a #)`, avoiding programmer

confusion.

...

It seems quite straightforward to me, so:

I recommend accepting this amendment to #475.

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/

-- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/

Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England

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

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/ _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/