Please review #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, Shepherd: Simon Marlow

Joachim Breitner

7 Nov 2019 7 Nov '19

4:29 a.m.

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: -XNoImplicitForAll has been proposed by John Ericson https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 https://github.com/Ericson2314/ghc-proposals/blob/no-implicit-forall/proposa... I propose Simon Marlow as the shepherd. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

Attachments:

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 833 bytes)

Show replies by date

Simon Marlow

11 Nov 11 Nov

4:44 a.m.

New subject: #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

Proposal #285: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 suggests two new LANGUAGE pragmas -XNoImplicitForall and -XNoPatternSignatureBinds. They have the effect of making a subset of existing programs illegal, and in that sense I don't think these are problematic. The intention is that these would be used with ExplicitForalls to enforce that all identifiers have explicit binding sites. I'm generally supportive of that. However I think we should be wary of the potential future direction, mentioned in the proposal:

...

As described in the motivation, this opens the door to other means to bind the previously implicitly bound variables.

...

Dear Committee,

this is your secretary speaking:

-XNoImplicitForAll has been proposed by John Ericson https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285

https://github.com/Ericson2314/ghc-proposals/blob/no-implicit-forall/proposa...

I propose Simon Marlow as the shepherd.

Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you.

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

Spiwack, Arnaud

12 Nov 12 Nov

1:58 p.m.

New subject: #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

I've left comments on the Github thread. I'm rather sympathetic to this idea. I personally think that the implicit binding rules that we have in place are a bit messy, so simply turning them off may be of help. My Github comments raise two points: - The proposal is a tad challenging to read, and I'd like some improvements before acceptance be considered - I'm questioning whether we really want two extensions for these two very related behaviours On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:44 AM Simon Marlow wrote:

...

Proposal #285:

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285

suggests two new LANGUAGE pragmas -XNoImplicitForall and -XNoPatternSignatureBinds.

They have the effect of making a subset of existing programs illegal, and in that sense I don't think these are problematic. The intention is that these would be used with ExplicitForalls to enforce that all identifiers have explicit binding sites. I'm generally supportive of that.

However I think we should be wary of the potential future direction, mentioned in the proposal:

...
As described in the motivation, this opens the door to other means to bind the previously implicitly bound variables.

i.e. an unbound name in a type could refer to a type variable bound in an enclosing scope. This would be a language *change*, not merely an addition or subtraction, and hence potentially fork-like. So we would want to consider very carefully whether that's the direction we want to take the language.

But since that isn't part of the current proposal, and the current proposal is merely an optional subtraction, I don't think it's controversial.

Cheers Simon

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 09:29, Joachim Breitner wrote:

...
Dear Committee,

this is your secretary speaking:

-XNoImplicitForAll has been proposed by John Ericson https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285

https://github.com/Ericson2314/ghc-proposals/blob/no-implicit-forall/proposa...

I propose Simon Marlow as the shepherd.

Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you.

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

Sandy Maguire

8:18 p.m.

New subject: #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

I'm largely in agreement with Arnaud here. On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:59 AM Spiwack, Arnaud wrote:

...

I've left comments on the Github thread.

I'm rather sympathetic to this idea. I personally think that the implicit binding rules that we have in place are a bit messy, so simply turning them off may be of help.

My Github comments raise two points:

- The proposal is a tad challenging to read, and I'd like some improvements before acceptance be considered - I'm questioning whether we really want two extensions for these two very related behaviours

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:44 AM Simon Marlow wrote:

...
Proposal #285:

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285

suggests two new LANGUAGE pragmas -XNoImplicitForall and -XNoPatternSignatureBinds.

They have the effect of making a subset of existing programs illegal, and in that sense I don't think these are problematic. The intention is that these would be used with ExplicitForalls to enforce that all identifiers have explicit binding sites. I'm generally supportive of that.

However I think we should be wary of the potential future direction, mentioned in the proposal:

...
As described in the motivation, this opens the door to other means to bind the previously implicitly bound variables.

i.e. an unbound name in a type could refer to a type variable bound in an enclosing scope. This would be a language *change*, not merely an addition or subtraction, and hence potentially fork-like. So we would want to consider very carefully whether that's the direction we want to take the language.

But since that isn't part of the current proposal, and the current proposal is merely an optional subtraction, I don't think it's controversial.

Cheers Simon

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 09:29, Joachim Breitner wrote:

...
Dear Committee,

this is your secretary speaking:

-XNoImplicitForAll has been proposed by John Ericson https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285

https://github.com/Ericson2314/ghc-proposals/blob/no-implicit-forall/proposa...

I propose Simon Marlow as the shepherd.

Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you.

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

-- I'm currently travelling the world, sleeping on people's couches and doing full-time collaboration on Haskell projects. If this seems interesting to you, please consider signing up as a host! https://isovector.github.io/erdos/

Simon Marlow

20 Jan 20 Jan

3:37 a.m.

New subject: #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

Dear committee: Proposal #285 is currently under consideration: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 I previously recommended acceptance, and there was some followup discussion on the GitHub thread where Simon PJ and Arnaud requested changes. The changes, namely clarifications and more examples, have all been implemented and those that requested changes have signed off. I think we can accept the proposal now. Any final concerns? Cheers Simon On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 01:18, Sandy Maguire wrote:

...

I'm largely in agreement with Arnaud here.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:59 AM Spiwack, Arnaud wrote:

...
I've left comments on the Github thread.

I'm rather sympathetic to this idea. I personally think that the implicit binding rules that we have in place are a bit messy, so simply turning them off may be of help.

My Github comments raise two points:

- The proposal is a tad challenging to read, and I'd like some improvements before acceptance be considered - I'm questioning whether we really want two extensions for these two very related behaviours

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:44 AM Simon Marlow wrote:

...
Proposal #285:

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285

suggests two new LANGUAGE pragmas -XNoImplicitForall and -XNoPatternSignatureBinds.

They have the effect of making a subset of existing programs illegal, and in that sense I don't think these are problematic. The intention is that these would be used with ExplicitForalls to enforce that all identifiers have explicit binding sites. I'm generally supportive of that.

However I think we should be wary of the potential future direction, mentioned in the proposal:

...
As described in the motivation, this opens the door to other means to bind the previously implicitly bound variables.

i.e. an unbound name in a type could refer to a type variable bound in an enclosing scope. This would be a language *change*, not merely an addition or subtraction, and hence potentially fork-like. So we would want to consider very carefully whether that's the direction we want to take the language.

But since that isn't part of the current proposal, and the current proposal is merely an optional subtraction, I don't think it's controversial.

Cheers Simon

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 09:29, Joachim Breitner wrote:

...
Dear Committee,

this is your secretary speaking:

-XNoImplicitForAll has been proposed by John Ericson https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285

https://github.com/Ericson2314/ghc-proposals/blob/no-implicit-forall/proposa...

I propose Simon Marlow as the shepherd.

Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you.

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

-- I'm currently travelling the world, sleeping on people's couches and doing full-time collaboration on Haskell projects. If this seems interesting to you, please consider signing up as a host! https://isovector.github.io/erdos/

Simon Peyton Jones

10:46 a.m.

New subject: #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

I support it. Simon From: ghc-steering-committee On Behalf Of Simon Marlow Sent: 20 January 2020 08:37 To: Sandy Maguire Cc: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org; Joachim Breitner Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept Dear committee: Proposal #285 is currently under consideration: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F285&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760511549&sdata=viFsM%2FAfs61mWTEzPUkQ48PLfj%2FBEbBoSXOUn1WPkwM%3D&reserved=0 I previously recommended acceptance, and there was some followup discussion on the GitHub thread where Simon PJ and Arnaud requested changes. The changes, namely clarifications and more examples, have all been implemented and those that requested changes have signed off. I think we can accept the proposal now. Any final concerns? Cheers Simon On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 01:18, Sandy Maguire mailto:sandy@sandymaguire.me> wrote: I'm largely in agreement with Arnaud here. On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:59 AM Spiwack, Arnaud mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote: I've left comments on the Github thread. I'm rather sympathetic to this idea. I personally think that the implicit binding rules that we have in place are a bit messy, so simply turning them off may be of help. My Github comments raise two points: - The proposal is a tad challenging to read, and I'd like some improvements before acceptance be considered - I'm questioning whether we really want two extensions for these two very related behaviours On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:44 AM Simon Marlow mailto:marlowsd@gmail.com> wrote: Proposal #285: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F285&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760511549&sdata=viFsM%2FAfs61mWTEzPUkQ48PLfj%2FBEbBoSXOUn1WPkwM%3D&reserved=0 suggests two new LANGUAGE pragmas -XNoImplicitForall and -XNoPatternSignatureBinds. They have the effect of making a subset of existing programs illegal, and in that sense I don't think these are problematic. The intention is that these would be used with ExplicitForalls to enforce that all identifiers have explicit binding sites. I'm generally supportive of that. However I think we should be wary of the potential future direction, mentioned in the proposal:

...

As described in the motivation, this opens the door to other means to bind the previously implicitly bound variables.

i.e. an unbound name in a type could refer to a type variable bound in an enclosing scope. This would be a language *change*, not merely an addition or subtraction, and hence potentially fork-like. So we would want to consider very carefully whether that's the direction we want to take the language. But since that isn't part of the current proposal, and the current proposal is merely an optional subtraction, I don't think it's controversial. Cheers Simon On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 09:29, Joachim Breitner mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote: Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: -XNoImplicitForAll has been proposed by John Ericson https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F285&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760521544&sdata=ejc%2FJIQfLnuiBFjxOIWJlYeO8BeGZXowfE8x7T6zEaY%3D&reserved=0 https://github.com/Ericson2314/ghc-proposals/blob/no-implicit-forall/proposa...https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FEricson2314%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2Fno-implicit-forall%2Fproposals%2F0000-no-implicit-forall.rst&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760521544&sdata=iWi%2Bzg3qDTF6OMdAQS2Hri%2Br9pMjpKLdN4Ua2NpmPwE%3D&reserved=0 I propose Simon Marlow as the shepherd. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%23committee-process&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760531535&sdata=Gfhz1Ed37fTO9yPAa06MGi0xDwDm0eiHMXuvzKSt%2BhM%3D&reserved=0 I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.demailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joachim-breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760531535&sdata=9D8Dc0ssSdOJQ%2BZeZDEGdH%2FblHCxGupgA%2FJSdYhufMQ%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760531535&sdata=2a6%2FP1ED6XTXeQo0wZZAVTZtV29uQ9ODX0dBLh%2BvrFo%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760541531&sdata=5%2Foe2KhonSKfa5jPmjVm8%2FCkWtSU5Qom534GWn%2Fb7LA%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760541531&sdata=5%2Foe2KhonSKfa5jPmjVm8%2FCkWtSU5Qom534GWn%2Fb7LA%3D&reserved=0 -- I'm currently travelling the world, sleeping on people's couches and doing full-time collaboration on Haskell projects. If this seems interesting to you, please consider signing up as a host! https://isovector.github.io/erdos/https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fisovector.github.io%2Ferdos%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760551523&sdata=T5V%2FuhomK2C6trPiDNHxA4hb71jX%2BPT9NG%2FCxpEvqjY%3D&reserved=0

Spiwack, Arnaud

21 Jan 21 Jan

2:48 a.m.

New subject: #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

I'm still not convinced about the fact that there are two extensions for this. Which seems more motivated by technical details of the implementation, rather than by semantics. But it is not a hill that I'm willing to die on… so if I'm alone in this, I'm not going to argue further. /Arnaud On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:46 PM Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee wrote:

...

I support it.

Simon

*From:* ghc-steering-committee *On Behalf Of *Simon Marlow *Sent:* 20 January 2020 08:37 *To:* Sandy Maguire *Cc:* ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org; Joachim Breitner < mail@joachim-breitner.de> *Subject:* Re: [ghc-steering-committee] #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

Dear committee:

Proposal #285 is currently under consideration: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F285&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760511549&sdata=viFsM%2FAfs61mWTEzPUkQ48PLfj%2FBEbBoSXOUn1WPkwM%3D&reserved=0

I previously recommended acceptance, and there was some followup discussion on the GitHub thread where Simon PJ and Arnaud requested changes. The changes, namely clarifications and more examples, have all been implemented and those that requested changes have signed off.

I think we can accept the proposal now. Any final concerns?

Cheers

Simon

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 01:18, Sandy Maguire wrote:

I'm largely in agreement with Arnaud here.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:59 AM Spiwack, Arnaud wrote:

I've left comments on the Github thread.

I'm rather sympathetic to this idea. I personally think that the implicit binding rules that we have in place are a bit messy, so simply turning them off may be of help.

My Github comments raise two points:

- The proposal is a tad challenging to read, and I'd like some improvements before acceptance be considered

- I'm questioning whether we really want two extensions for these two very related behaviours

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:44 AM Simon Marlow wrote:

Proposal #285:

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F285&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760511549&sdata=viFsM%2FAfs61mWTEzPUkQ48PLfj%2FBEbBoSXOUn1WPkwM%3D&reserved=0

suggests two new LANGUAGE pragmas -XNoImplicitForall and -XNoPatternSignatureBinds.

They have the effect of making a subset of existing programs illegal, and in that sense I don't think these are problematic. The intention is that these would be used with ExplicitForalls to enforce that all identifiers have explicit binding sites. I'm generally supportive of that.

However I think we should be wary of the potential future direction, mentioned in the proposal:

...
As described in the motivation, this opens the door to other means to bind the previously implicitly bound variables.

i.e. an unbound name in a type could refer to a type variable bound in an enclosing scope. This would be a language *change*, not merely an addition or subtraction, and hence potentially fork-like. So we would want to consider very carefully whether that's the direction we want to take the language.

But since that isn't part of the current proposal, and the current proposal is merely an optional subtraction, I don't think it's controversial.

Cheers

Simon

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 09:29, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Dear Committee,

this is your secretary speaking:

-XNoImplicitForAll has been proposed by John Ericson https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F285&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760521544&sdata=ejc%2FJIQfLnuiBFjxOIWJlYeO8BeGZXowfE8x7T6zEaY%3D&reserved=0

https://github.com/Ericson2314/ghc-proposals/blob/no-implicit-forall/proposa... https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FEricson2314%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2Fno-implicit-forall%2Fproposals%2F0000-no-implicit-forall.rst&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760521544&sdata=iWi%2Bzg3qDTF6OMdAQS2Hri%2Br9pMjpKLdN4Ua2NpmPwE%3D&reserved=0

I propose Simon Marlow as the shepherd.

Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%23committee-process&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760531535&sdata=Gfhz1Ed37fTO9yPAa06MGi0xDwDm0eiHMXuvzKSt%2BhM%3D&reserved=0 I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you.

Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joachim-breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760531535&sdata=9D8Dc0ssSdOJQ%2BZeZDEGdH%2FblHCxGupgA%2FJSdYhufMQ%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760531535&sdata=2a6%2FP1ED6XTXeQo0wZZAVTZtV29uQ9ODX0dBLh%2BvrFo%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760541531&sdata=5%2Foe2KhonSKfa5jPmjVm8%2FCkWtSU5Qom534GWn%2Fb7LA%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760541531&sdata=5%2Foe2KhonSKfa5jPmjVm8%2FCkWtSU5Qom534GWn%2Fb7LA%3D&reserved=0

--

I'm currently travelling the world, sleeping on people's couches and doing full-time collaboration on Haskell projects. If this seems interesting to you, please consider signing up as a host! https://isovector.github.io/erdos/ https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fisovector.github.io%2Ferdos%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7b34ece5aaca4bf1061808d79d840b1c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637151062760551523&sdata=T5V%2FuhomK2C6trPiDNHxA4hb71jX%2BPT9NG%2FCxpEvqjY%3D&reserved=0

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

Joachim Breitner

3 May 3 May

7:21 a.m.

New subject: #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

Hi, Am Montag, den 20.01.2020, 08:37 +0000 schrieb Simon Marlow:

...

Proposal #285 is currently under consideration: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285

I previously recommended acceptance, and there was some followup discussion on the GitHub thread where Simon PJ and Arnaud requested changes. The changes, namely clarifications and more examples, have all been implemented and those that requested changes have signed off.

I think we can accept the proposal now. Any final concerns?

looks like this never happened, and Arnaud was the last to comment, and said “if I'm alone in this, I'm not going to argue further.”. Simon M, if you tell me so, I’ll merge it as accepted. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

Simon Peyton Jones

4 May 4 May

7:31 a.m.

New subject: #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

I think it's good to go. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee | On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 03 May 2020 12:22 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, | recommendation: accept | | Hi, | | | Am Montag, den 20.01.2020, 08:37 +0000 schrieb Simon Marlow: | > Proposal #285 is currently under consideration: | > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285 | > | > I previously recommended acceptance, and there was some followup | > discussion on the GitHub thread where Simon PJ and Arnaud requested | > changes. The changes, namely clarifications and more examples, have | > all been implemented and those that requested changes have signed | > off. | > | > I think we can accept the proposal now. Any final concerns? | | looks like this never happened, and Arnaud was the last to comment, and | said “if I'm alone in this, I'm not going to argue further.”. | | Simon M, if you tell me so, I’ll merge it as accepted. | | 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

Joachim Breitner

8:57 a.m.

New subject: #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

Hi, great, merged. Cheers, Joachim Am Montag, den 04.05.2020, 11:31 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee:

...

I think it's good to go.

Simon

...
-----Original Message----- From: ghc-steering-committee On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner Sent: 03 May 2020 12:22 To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] #285: -XNoImplicitForAll, recommendation: accept

Hi,

Am Montag, den 20.01.2020, 08:37 +0000 schrieb Simon Marlow:

...
Proposal #285 is currently under consideration: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/285

I previously recommended acceptance, and there was some followup discussion on the GitHub thread where Simon PJ and Arnaud requested changes. The changes, namely clarifications and more examples, have all been implemented and those that requested changes have signed off.

I think we can accept the proposal now. Any final concerns?

looks like this never happened, and Arnaud was the last to comment, and said “if I'm alone in this, I'm not going to argue further.”.

Simon M, if you tell me so, I’ll merge it as accepted.

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

ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1842

Age (days ago)

2021

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

9 comments

5 participants

participants (5)

Joachim Breitner
Sandy Maguire
Simon Marlow
Simon Peyton Jones
Spiwack, Arnaud