I've commented on the PR [ https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392#pullrequestreview-65... ] the changes on the syntax of lambda expressions are not motivated at all, I think at the very least there should be a discussion in the Alternatives section. But mostly, I'm worried about the implications/interactions that these changes have with linear types. (I'll be off for the rest of the week starting tonight, so I'll be back on this conversation on Monday, most likely) On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alejandro Serrano Mena wrote:

Dear Committee, This proposal seems a natural extension of #370, covering some additional cases (modifiers to classes and other declarations) that we’ve found along the way. My recommendation is acceptance.

Regards, Alejandro

On 4 May 2021 at 09:41:56, Joachim Breitner wrote:

...

Dear Committe,

Clarify modifiers design principle has been proposed by Richard https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392

This is an amendmend to #370, see the PR description for links to diffs etc.

I propose Alejandro as the shepherd, as he shepherded #370 before.

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

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

Dear all, This discussion has been dormant for some time, but it’s time to revive it! Richard, Arnaud, did you manage to reach conclusion about the modification to the proposal? Apart from that, is there any other concern about the proposal? As I said in my original message, this is a very small amendment to an already-existing proposal, so if we accepted the previous one I see no problem in this one. I’ll wait until Richard and Arnaud get back on the issue, and then assume that silence for a week is acceptance. Regards, Alejandro El 11 jun 2021 14:55:41, Spiwack, Arnaud escribió:

I think that my discussion with Richard has come to a conclusion (it should incur a small modification to the proposal).

It is a very small (amendment to a) proposal, let's find a consensus on this one quickly.

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:26 AM Spiwack, Arnaud wrote:

...

I've commented on the PR [ https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392#pullrequestreview-65... ] the changes on the syntax of lambda expressions are not motivated at all, I think at the very least there should be a discussion in the Alternatives section.

But mostly, I'm worried about the implications/interactions that these changes have with linear types.

(I'll be off for the rest of the week starting tonight, so I'll be back on this conversation on Monday, most likely)

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alejandro Serrano Mena < trupill@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear Committee, This proposal seems a natural extension of #370, covering some additional cases (modifiers to classes and other declarations) that we’ve found along the way. My recommendation is acceptance.

Regards, Alejandro

On 4 May 2021 at 09:41:56, Joachim Breitner wrote:

...

Dear Committe,

Clarify modifiers design principle has been proposed by Richard https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392

This is an amendmend to #370, see the PR description for links to diffs etc.

I propose Alejandro as the shepherd, as he shepherded #370 before.

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

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

Richard, will you take care of making those small changes to the proposal? That way we could mark this as accepted. Regards, Alejandro El 28 jun 2021 9:01:28, Spiwack, Arnaud escribió:

Yes, I believe that Richard and I are in agreement now. I don't think all the conclusions have been added to the proposal yet, though; but whatever's left, it's fairly minor.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:29 PM Alejandro Serrano Mena wrote:

...

Dear all, This discussion has been dormant for some time, but it’s time to revive it!

Richard, Arnaud, did you manage to reach conclusion about the modification to the proposal?

Apart from that, is there any other concern about the proposal? As I said in my original message, this is a very small amendment to an already-existing proposal, so if we accepted the previous one I see no problem in this one. I’ll wait until Richard and Arnaud get back on the issue, and then assume that silence for a week is acceptance.

Regards, Alejandro

El 11 jun 2021 14:55:41, Spiwack, Arnaud escribió:

...

I think that my discussion with Richard has come to a conclusion (it should incur a small modification to the proposal).

It is a very small (amendment to a) proposal, let's find a consensus on this one quickly.

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:26 AM Spiwack, Arnaud < arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:

...

I've commented on the PR [ https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392#pullrequestreview-65... ] the changes on the syntax of lambda expressions are not motivated at all, I think at the very least there should be a discussion in the Alternatives section.

But mostly, I'm worried about the implications/interactions that these changes have with linear types.

(I'll be off for the rest of the week starting tonight, so I'll be back on this conversation on Monday, most likely)

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alejandro Serrano Mena < trupill@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear Committee, This proposal seems a natural extension of #370, covering some additional cases (modifiers to classes and other declarations) that we’ve found along the way. My recommendation is acceptance.

Regards, Alejandro

On 4 May 2021 at 09:41:56, Joachim Breitner wrote:

...

Dear Committe,

Clarify modifiers design principle has been proposed by Richard https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392

This is an amendmend to #370, see the PR description for links to diffs etc.

I propose Alejandro as the shepherd, as he shepherded #370 before.

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

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org

https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

I like the idea of allowing the semicolon, but I believe it should be optional, as I stated on GitHub: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/390#issuecomment-8782969... I'm content to add the (optional) semicolon to #392. I don't know about the practical ramifications. Vlad may be best positioned to answer that. Richard

On Jul 23, 2021, at 3:53 AM, Alejandro Serrano Mena wrote:

Dear all, Richard has now updated the proposal, but only Arnaud has commented on it. I think this requires a few more eyes, since it will permeate the language once people start using linear types, and we are already thinking about introducing modifiers in other parts.

In fact, I’ve realised that there’s a (grammar) conflict between this proposal and https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/390 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/390 (the fine-grained pragmas for type classes and instances). This proposal defines

topdecl ::= {modifier} 'type' simpletype '=' type | {modifier} 'data' [context '=>'] simpletype ['=' constrs] [deriving] | {modifier} 'newtype' [context '=>'] simpletype = newconstr [deriving] | {modifier} 'class' [scontext '=>'] tycls tyvar ['where' cdecls] | {modifier} 'instance' [scontext '=>'] qtycls inst ['where' idecls]

But #390 defines (note the ; at the end of the modifiers block):

modifiers : {- empty -} | ('%' qtycon)* ';' cl_decl : modifiers 'class' tycl_hdr fds where_cls

I guess we should sort this out before accepting any of them.

Alejandro

El 28 jun 2021 21:26:45, Alejandro Serrano Mena mailto:trupill@gmail.com> escribió: Richard, will you take care of making those small changes to the proposal? That way we could mark this as accepted.

Regards, Alejandro

El 28 jun 2021 9:01:28, Spiwack, Arnaud mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> escribió: Yes, I believe that Richard and I are in agreement now. I don't think all the conclusions have been added to the proposal yet, though; but whatever's left, it's fairly minor.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:29 PM Alejandro Serrano Mena mailto:trupill@gmail.com> wrote: Dear all, This discussion has been dormant for some time, but it’s time to revive it!

Richard, Arnaud, did you manage to reach conclusion about the modification to the proposal?

Apart from that, is there any other concern about the proposal? As I said in my original message, this is a very small amendment to an already-existing proposal, so if we accepted the previous one I see no problem in this one. I’ll wait until Richard and Arnaud get back on the issue, and then assume that silence for a week is acceptance.

Regards, Alejandro

El 11 jun 2021 14:55:41, Spiwack, Arnaud mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> escribió: I think that my discussion with Richard has come to a conclusion (it should incur a small modification to the proposal).

It is a very small (amendment to a) proposal, let's find a consensus on this one quickly.

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:26 AM Spiwack, Arnaud mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote: I've commented on the PR [ https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392#pullrequestreview-65... https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392#pullrequestreview-65... ] the changes on the syntax of lambda expressions are not motivated at all, I think at the very least there should be a discussion in the Alternatives section.

But mostly, I'm worried about the implications/interactions that these changes have with linear types.

(I'll be off for the rest of the week starting tonight, so I'll be back on this conversation on Monday, most likely)

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alejandro Serrano Mena mailto:trupill@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Committee, This proposal seems a natural extension of #370, covering some additional cases (modifiers to classes and other declarations) that we’ve found along the way. My recommendation is acceptance.

Regards, Alejandro

On 4 May 2021 at 09:41:56, Joachim Breitner mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote: Dear Committe,

Clarify modifiers design principle has been proposed by Richard https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392

This is an amendmend to #370, see the PR description for links to diffs etc.

I propose Alejandro as the shepherd, as he shepherded #370 before.

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

Thanks, Joachim -- -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

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

Dear Committee, As far as I understand, the proposal now allows annotations before classes/instances/types/… to appear either in its own line or before the thing, by making semicolons optional (which would be introduced during parsing if we use a newline). I think the proposal is ready for acceptance, if no more problems pop up. Regards, Alejandro El 17 dic 2021 23:18:35, Richard Eisenberg escribió:

I've updated the proposal to include an optional semicolon: https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/clarify-modifiers/proposals...

Richard

On Jul 26, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

I like the idea of allowing the semicolon, but I believe it should be optional, as I stated on GitHub: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/390#issuecomment-8782969...

I'm content to add the (optional) semicolon to #392.

I don't know about the practical ramifications. Vlad may be best positioned to answer that.

Richard

On Jul 23, 2021, at 3:53 AM, Alejandro Serrano Mena wrote:

Dear all, Richard has now updated the proposal, but only Arnaud has commented on it. I think this requires a few more eyes, since it will permeate the language once people start using linear types, and we are already thinking about introducing modifiers in other parts.

In fact, I’ve realised that there’s a (grammar) conflict between this proposal and https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/390 (the fine-grained pragmas for type classes and instances). This proposal defines

topdecl ::= {modifier} 'type' simpletype '=' type | {modifier} 'data' [context '=>'] simpletype ['=' constrs] [deriving] | {modifier} 'newtype' [context '=>'] simpletype = newconstr [deriving] | {modifier} 'class' [scontext '=>'] tycls tyvar ['where' cdecls] | {modifier} 'instance' [scontext '=>'] qtycls inst ['where' idecls]

But #390 defines (note the ; at the end of the modifiers block):

modifiers : {- empty -} | ('%' qtycon)* ';' cl_decl : modifiers 'class' tycl_hdr fds where_cls

I guess we should sort this out before accepting any of them.

Alejandro

El 28 jun 2021 21:26:45, Alejandro Serrano Mena escribió:

...

Richard, will you take care of making those small changes to the proposal? That way we could mark this as accepted.

Regards, Alejandro

El 28 jun 2021 9:01:28, Spiwack, Arnaud escribió:

...

Yes, I believe that Richard and I are in agreement now. I don't think all the conclusions have been added to the proposal yet, though; but whatever's left, it's fairly minor.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:29 PM Alejandro Serrano Mena < trupill@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear all, This discussion has been dormant for some time, but it’s time to revive it!

Richard, Arnaud, did you manage to reach conclusion about the modification to the proposal?

Apart from that, is there any other concern about the proposal? As I said in my original message, this is a very small amendment to an already-existing proposal, so if we accepted the previous one I see no problem in this one. I’ll wait until Richard and Arnaud get back on the issue, and then assume that silence for a week is acceptance.

Regards, Alejandro

El 11 jun 2021 14:55:41, Spiwack, Arnaud escribió:

...

I think that my discussion with Richard has come to a conclusion (it should incur a small modification to the proposal).

It is a very small (amendment to a) proposal, let's find a consensus on this one quickly.

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:26 AM Spiwack, Arnaud < arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:

...

I've commented on the PR [ https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392#pullrequestreview-65... ] the changes on the syntax of lambda expressions are not motivated at all, I think at the very least there should be a discussion in the Alternatives section.

But mostly, I'm worried about the implications/interactions that these changes have with linear types.

(I'll be off for the rest of the week starting tonight, so I'll be back on this conversation on Monday, most likely)

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alejandro Serrano Mena < trupill@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Committee, > This proposal seems a natural extension of #370, covering some > additional cases (modifiers to classes and other declarations) that we’ve > found along the way. My recommendation is acceptance. > > Regards, > Alejandro > > On 4 May 2021 at 09:41:56, Joachim Breitner < > mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote: > >> Dear Committe, >> >> Clarify modifiers design principle >> has been proposed by Richard >> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392 >> >> This is an amendmend to #370, see the PR description for links to >> diffs >> etc. >> >> I propose Alejandro as the shepherd, as he shepherded #370 before. >> >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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

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

Two weeks instead of one have passed, and nobody has raised objections. @Joachim: should I merge it, or are you the one doing that? Regards, Alejandro El 8 ene 2022 17:32:31, Alejandro Serrano Mena escribió:

Dear Committee, There has been no movement about this proposal (even after the New Year holidays). If there’s nothing against it, I’ll accept the proposal next Saturday (so there’s still one week to think about it).

Regards, Alejandro

El 23 dic 2021 15:41:26, Alejandro Serrano Mena escribió:

...

Dear Committee,

As far as I understand, the proposal now allows annotations before classes/instances/types/… to appear either in its own line or before the thing, by making semicolons optional (which would be introduced during parsing if we use a newline).

I think the proposal is ready for acceptance, if no more problems pop up.

Regards, Alejandro

El 17 dic 2021 23:18:35, Richard Eisenberg escribió:

...

I've updated the proposal to include an optional semicolon: https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/clarify-modifiers/proposals...

Richard

On Jul 26, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

I like the idea of allowing the semicolon, but I believe it should be optional, as I stated on GitHub: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/390#issuecomment-8782969...

I'm content to add the (optional) semicolon to #392.

I don't know about the practical ramifications. Vlad may be best positioned to answer that.

Richard

On Jul 23, 2021, at 3:53 AM, Alejandro Serrano Mena wrote:

Dear all, Richard has now updated the proposal, but only Arnaud has commented on it. I think this requires a few more eyes, since it will permeate the language once people start using linear types, and we are already thinking about introducing modifiers in other parts.

In fact, I’ve realised that there’s a (grammar) conflict between this proposal and https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/390 (the fine-grained pragmas for type classes and instances). This proposal defines

topdecl ::= {modifier} 'type' simpletype '=' type | {modifier} 'data' [context '=>'] simpletype ['=' constrs] [deriving] | {modifier} 'newtype' [context '=>'] simpletype = newconstr [deriving] | {modifier} 'class' [scontext '=>'] tycls tyvar ['where' cdecls] | {modifier} 'instance' [scontext '=>'] qtycls inst ['where' idecls]

But #390 defines (note the ; at the end of the modifiers block):

modifiers : {- empty -} | ('%' qtycon)* ';' cl_decl : modifiers 'class' tycl_hdr fds where_cls

I guess we should sort this out before accepting any of them.

Alejandro

El 28 jun 2021 21:26:45, Alejandro Serrano Mena escribió:

...

Richard, will you take care of making those small changes to the proposal? That way we could mark this as accepted.

Regards, Alejandro

El 28 jun 2021 9:01:28, Spiwack, Arnaud escribió:

...

Yes, I believe that Richard and I are in agreement now. I don't think all the conclusions have been added to the proposal yet, though; but whatever's left, it's fairly minor.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:29 PM Alejandro Serrano Mena < trupill@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear all, This discussion has been dormant for some time, but it’s time to revive it!

Richard, Arnaud, did you manage to reach conclusion about the modification to the proposal?

Apart from that, is there any other concern about the proposal? As I said in my original message, this is a very small amendment to an already-existing proposal, so if we accepted the previous one I see no problem in this one. I’ll wait until Richard and Arnaud get back on the issue, and then assume that silence for a week is acceptance.

Regards, Alejandro

El 11 jun 2021 14:55:41, Spiwack, Arnaud escribió:

> I think that my discussion with Richard has come to a conclusion (it > should incur a small modification to the proposal). > > It is a very small (amendment to a) proposal, let's find a consensus > on this one quickly. > > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:26 AM Spiwack, Arnaud < > arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote: > >> I've commented on the PR [ >> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392#pullrequestreview-65... >> ] the changes on the syntax of lambda expressions are not motivated at all, >> I think at the very least there should be a discussion in the Alternatives >> section. >> >> But mostly, I'm worried about the implications/interactions that >> these changes have with linear types. >> >> (I'll be off for the rest of the week starting tonight, so I'll be >> back on this conversation on Monday, most likely) >> >> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alejandro Serrano Mena < >> trupill@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Committee, >>> This proposal seems a natural extension of #370, covering some >>> additional cases (modifiers to classes and other declarations) that we’ve >>> found along the way. My recommendation is acceptance. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alejandro >>> >>> On 4 May 2021 at 09:41:56, Joachim Breitner < >>> mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Committe, >>>> >>>> Clarify modifiers design principle >>>> has been proposed by Richard >>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392 >>>> >>>> This is an amendmend to #370, see the PR description for links to >>>> diffs >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> I propose Alejandro as the shepherd, as he shepherded #370 before. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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

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

El 27 ene 2022 20:34:16, Joachim Breitner escribió:

Hi,

Am Donnerstag, dem 27.01.2022 um 13:28 +0000 schrieb Alejandro Serrano Mena:

Two weeks instead of one have passed, and nobody has raised

objections.

@Joachim: should I merge it, or are you the one doing that?

just done.

Looks like you have successfully concluded the two PRs that were on your plate when you announced your resignation. Is that still your plan and we have to bid you farewell now?

Unfortunately the world hasn’t changed enough in this time for me to have the required free time, so I still think that’s the best outcome for me. But hey, maybe in a few years time I’ll be asking to be part of the Committee again! Regards, Alejandro

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