I am absolutely not opposed to this proposal. In current code, it's probably not a good idea to define `return` or `mappend` anyway. So I should certainly not be counted as blocking acceptance. I just would have liked a bit of clarity about the context, which I feel I'm very much missing. /Arnaud On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:40 PM Tom Harding wrote:

Hi all,

My feeling is that, having incorporated Richard’s suggestions around clarity of the error, we’re broadly happy with this.

This proposal was put forward two weeks ago, and it seems that those who have responded are in favour of it. It does raise questions around the current state of the “Monad of No Return” plan, but I think that’s an ongoing effort that currently calls for patience (as the majority of libraries adopt the proposed changes), and I maintain that this proposal would help that effort.

Does anyone have anything further that they’d like to add? Otherwise, if no one has any objection, perhaps this proposal can be accepted at the end of the week.

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