Remove TypeOperators => NoStarIsType "migration" (#146); Recommendation: accept

Hi everyone, We are being asked to consider pull request #146. This proposal is an amendment to the accepted Proposal 0020 [1], removing a migration mechanism which was found in practice to hurt more than help. Specifically, proposal 0020 currently specifies a migration period during which the -XNoStarIsType extension (which proposal 0020 introduces) will be implied by -XTypeOperators. The motivation for this was to ease the transition for packages which use * as a binary type operator. In practice it turned out that a significant number of packages are broken by this migration mechanism. Specifically, many packages use * in kind signatures while also enabling TypeOperators. The proposed amendment removes TypeOperator's implication of NoStarIsType. To be clear, this is ultimately a trade-off between optimising for users of (*) as a binary operator and users of * ~ Type. It just so happens that there are far more of the latter. Consequently, my recommendation is to accept the modified proposal. Cheers, - Ben [1] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83

Hi, Am Montag, den 25.06.2018, 10:19 -0400 schrieb Ben Gamari:
Consequently, my recommendation is to accept the modified proposal.
sounds good to me. Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

Ben Gamari
Hi everyone,
...
The proposed amendment removes TypeOperator's implication of NoStarIsType. To be clear, this is ultimately a trade-off between optimising for users of (*) as a binary operator and users of * ~ Type. It just so happens that there are far more of the latter. Consequently, my recommendation is to accept the modified proposal.
Given that this is (hopefully) a relatively uncontroversial change, my plan is to move ahead with issuing alpha 1 with the new NoStarIsType semantics on Wednesday. If anyone on the committee feels strongly about the issue and would prefer that I not do this do let me know soon and we can discuss. Cheers, - Ben

+1
Am 26.06.2018 um 02:07 schrieb Ben Gamari
: Signierter PGP-Teil Ben Gamari
writes: Hi everyone,
...
The proposed amendment removes TypeOperator's implication of NoStarIsType. To be clear, this is ultimately a trade-off between optimising for users of (*) as a binary operator and users of * ~ Type. It just so happens that there are far more of the latter. Consequently, my recommendation is to accept the modified proposal.
Given that this is (hopefully) a relatively uncontroversial change, my plan is to move ahead with issuing alpha 1 with the new NoStarIsType semantics on Wednesday. If anyone on the committee feels strongly about the issue and would prefer that I not do this do let me know soon and we can discuss.
Cheers,
- Ben

I'm in favour.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee

It's nice when experience guides us. +1
On Jun 26, 2018, at 4:50 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee
wrote: I'm in favour.
Simon
| -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee
On | Behalf Of Manuel M T Chakravarty | Sent: 26 June 2018 04:41 | To: Ben Gamari | Cc: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Remove TypeOperators => NoStarIsType | "migration" (#146); Recommendation: accept | | +1 | | > Am 26.06.2018 um 02:07 schrieb Ben Gamari : | > | > Signierter PGP-Teil | > Ben Gamari writes: | > | >> Hi everyone, | >> | > ... | >> | >> The proposed amendment removes TypeOperator's implication of | >> NoStarIsType. To be clear, this is ultimately a trade-off between | >> optimising for users of (*) as a binary operator and users of * ~ Type. | >> It just so happens that there are far more of the latter. | >> Consequently, my recommendation is to accept the modified proposal. | >> | > Given that this is (hopefully) a relatively uncontroversial change, my | > plan is to move ahead with issuing alpha 1 with the new NoStarIsType | > semantics on Wednesday. If anyone on the committee feels strongly | > about the issue and would prefer that I not do this do let me know | > soon and we can discuss. | > | > Cheers, | > | > - Ben | > | > _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

Ben Gamari
Hi everyone,
We are being asked to consider pull request #146. This proposal is an amendment to the accepted Proposal 0020 [1], removing a migration mechanism which was found in practice to hurt more than help.
If anyone has any objection do say so. If none is expressed in the next two days I will merge. Cheers, - Ben

Hi, Am Montag, den 02.07.2018, 17:02 -0400 schrieb Ben Gamari:
Ben Gamari
writes: Hi everyone,
We are being asked to consider pull request #146. This proposal is an amendment to the accepted Proposal 0020 [1], removing a migration mechanism which was found in practice to hurt more than help.
If anyone has any objection do say so. If none is expressed in the next two days I will merge.
merged. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
participants (5)
-
Ben Gamari
-
Joachim Breitner
-
Manuel M T Chakravarty
-
Richard Eisenberg
-
Simon Peyton Jones