
Hi, this is your secretary speaking: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27 was brought before the committee. I propose Richard as the Shepherd. Richard, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

Hello,
I am not very convinced about the utility of this proposal. Also, I think
that the current specification could use more details about how the system
should work. I wrote a comment on the pull-request thread with more
details.
-Iavor
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Joachim Breitner
Hi,
this is your secretary speaking:
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27 was brought before the committee. I propose Richard as the Shepherd.
Richard, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you.
Greetings, 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

I'm not convinced either. Generally if a silent `seq` is biting you
the problem was partiality and not insufficient lightness of the soul.
It seems like it would change sharing behavior as well, which is not
good. This affects a lot of code with unreachable branches they can't
reasonably get rid of. Often this is code that is performance
sensitive and depends on the particulars of how things are getting
shared.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Iavor Diatchki
Hello,
I am not very convinced about the utility of this proposal. Also, I think that the current specification could use more details about how the system should work. I wrote a comment on the pull-request thread with more details.
-Iavor
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
this is your secretary speaking:
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27 was brought before the committee. I propose Richard as the Shepherd.
Richard, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you.
Greetings, 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
-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com

I agree that the proposal isn’t as specified as I’d like. Beyond that quibble, I don’t know how I could really evaluate this without knowing its true impact on existing Haskell code. If it were fully backward compatible and performant, I might be mildly in favor. But I worry it will fail on both counts... and the question is: how badly? I don’t know a way of answering that without implementing it, though! Richard
On Feb 28, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Christopher Allen
wrote: I'm not convinced either. Generally if a silent `seq` is biting you the problem was partiality and not insufficient lightness of the soul. It seems like it would change sharing behavior as well, which is not good. This affects a lot of code with unreachable branches they can't reasonably get rid of. Often this is code that is performance sensitive and depends on the particulars of how things are getting shared.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Iavor Diatchki
wrote: Hello,
I am not very convinced about the utility of this proposal. Also, I think that the current specification could use more details about how the system should work. I wrote a comment on the pull-request thread with more details.
-Iavor
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
this is your secretary speaking:
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27 was brought before the committee. I propose Richard as the Shepherd.
Richard, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you.
Greetings, 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
-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
participants (4)
-
Christopher Allen
-
Iavor Diatchki
-
Joachim Breitner
-
Richard Eisenberg