
The proposal I'm reviewing is: Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28 Having reviewed the proposal and gone through some of the GHC Trac history, I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern. Cheers, Chris Allen

I have some reservations with the current proposal. I've posted on GitHub. Richard
On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:18 PM, Christopher Allen
wrote: The proposal I'm reviewing is:
Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28
Having reviewed the proposal and gone through some of the GHC Trac history, I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.
Cheers, Chris Allen _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

I'm quite doubtful. I've posted a comment on the ticket to say why.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee

I do agree with Simon. Manuel
Am 15.06.2018 um 19:26 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee
: I'm quite doubtful. I've posted a comment on the ticket to say why.
Simon
| -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee
On | Behalf Of Christopher Allen | Sent: 14 June 2018 00:19 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Bundling patterns with type synonyms (#28) | | The proposal I'm reviewing is: | | Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe | Hermaszewski | | https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28 | | Having reviewed the proposal and gone through some of the GHC Trac history, | I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open | questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity | of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern. | | | Cheers, | Chris Allen | _______________________________________________ | 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

Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2018, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen:
Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28
I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.
I agree with Simon that might not take the language in the direction we want to take it. In fact, if we had PatternSynonyms and ExplicitNamespaces back when Haskell was first specified, we might not have the T(K) syntax at all, and just a flat, explicit list of names, possibly requiring explicit namespace qualifier to disambiguate? Things like deprecating exports would have been easier then… So while I follow the motivation of the proposal, and I don’t have concrete other solution to offer, I am inclined to reject it: The problem it is solving does not seem to be too urgent, and my gut feeling says that there might be something better down the road. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

Agreed. Beyond my posted technical reservations, I believe that a better solution is out there. Richard
On Jun 23, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2018, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen:
Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28
I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.
I agree with Simon that might not take the language in the direction we want to take it.
In fact, if we had PatternSynonyms and ExplicitNamespaces back when Haskell was first specified, we might not have the T(K) syntax at all, and just a flat, explicit list of names, possibly requiring explicit namespace qualifier to disambiguate? Things like deprecating exports would have been easier then…
So while I follow the motivation of the proposal, and I don’t have concrete other solution to offer, I am inclined to reject it: The problem it is solving does not seem to be too urgent, and my gut feeling says that there might be something better down the road.
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

Hi, we have disagreement here. Chris, would you steer us towards consensus? Cheers, Joachim Am Samstag, den 23.06.2018, 23:19 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
Agreed. Beyond my posted technical reservations, I believe that a better solution is out there.
Richard
On Jun 23, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2018, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen:
Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28
I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.
I agree with Simon that might not take the language in the direction we want to take it.
In fact, if we had PatternSynonyms and ExplicitNamespaces back when Haskell was first specified, we might not have the T(K) syntax at all, and just a flat, explicit list of names, possibly requiring explicit namespace qualifier to disambiguate? Things like deprecating exports would have been easier then…
So while I follow the motivation of the proposal, and I don’t have concrete other solution to offer, I am inclined to reject it: The problem it is solving does not seem to be too urgent, and my gut feeling says that there might be something better down the road.
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/

I think based on what transpired in this thread and on the GitHub PR,
the proposal should be rejected. My reasoning:
- There was a more general way to solve the problem outlined by Simon.
- The complexity doesn't pay for itself, esp. given how particular the
problem it solves is.
What do y'all think?
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 10:35 AM Joachim Breitner
Hi,
we have disagreement here. Chris, would you steer us towards consensus?
Cheers, Joachim
Am Samstag, den 23.06.2018, 23:19 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
Agreed. Beyond my posted technical reservations, I believe that a better solution is out there.
Richard
On Jun 23, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2018, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen:
Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28
I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.
I agree with Simon that might not take the language in the direction we want to take it.
In fact, if we had PatternSynonyms and ExplicitNamespaces back when Haskell was first specified, we might not have the T(K) syntax at all, and just a flat, explicit list of names, possibly requiring explicit namespace qualifier to disambiguate? Things like deprecating exports would have been easier then…
So while I follow the motivation of the proposal, and I don’t have concrete other solution to offer, I am inclined to reject it: The problem it is solving does not seem to be too urgent, and my gut feeling says that there might be something better down the road.
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/
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 with rejecting. I think this should be part of a larger proposal to introduce modules. Thanks, Richard
On Sep 30, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Christopher Allen
wrote: I think based on what transpired in this thread and on the GitHub PR, the proposal should be rejected. My reasoning:
- There was a more general way to solve the problem outlined by Simon. - The complexity doesn't pay for itself, esp. given how particular the problem it solves is.
What do y'all think? On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 10:35 AM Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
we have disagreement here. Chris, would you steer us towards consensus?
Cheers, Joachim
Am Samstag, den 23.06.2018, 23:19 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
Agreed. Beyond my posted technical reservations, I believe that a better solution is out there.
Richard
On Jun 23, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2018, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen:
Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28
I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.
I agree with Simon that might not take the language in the direction we want to take it.
In fact, if we had PatternSynonyms and ExplicitNamespaces back when Haskell was first specified, we might not have the T(K) syntax at all, and just a flat, explicit list of names, possibly requiring explicit namespace qualifier to disambiguate? Things like deprecating exports would have been easier then…
So while I follow the motivation of the proposal, and I don’t have concrete other solution to offer, I am inclined to reject it: The problem it is solving does not seem to be too urgent, and my gut feeling says that there might be something better down the road.
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/
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

Hi, looks like we are rejecting this. Christopher, would you care to close the pull request with a nice and constructive message for the authors? Thanks, Joachim Am Sonntag, den 30.09.2018, 21:08 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
I agree with rejecting. I think this should be part of a larger proposal to introduce modules.
Thanks, Richard
On Sep 30, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Christopher Allen
wrote: I think based on what transpired in this thread and on the GitHub PR, the proposal should be rejected. My reasoning:
- There was a more general way to solve the problem outlined by Simon. - The complexity doesn't pay for itself, esp. given how particular the problem it solves is.
What do y'all think? On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 10:35 AM Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
we have disagreement here. Chris, would you steer us towards consensus?
Cheers, Joachim
Am Samstag, den 23.06.2018, 23:19 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
Agreed. Beyond my posted technical reservations, I believe that a better solution is out there.
Richard
On Jun 23, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2018, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen:
Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28
I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.
I agree with Simon that might not take the language in the direction we want to take it.
In fact, if we had PatternSynonyms and ExplicitNamespaces back when Haskell was first specified, we might not have the T(K) syntax at all, and just a flat, explicit list of names, possibly requiring explicit namespace qualifier to disambiguate? Things like deprecating exports would have been easier then…
So while I follow the motivation of the proposal, and I don’t have concrete other solution to offer, I am inclined to reject it: The problem it is solving does not seem to be too urgent, and my gut feeling says that there might be something better down the road.
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/ _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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/

I'll try to gather up the principal reasons for rejection and do so, thank you!
On Nov 5, 2018, at 07:53, Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
looks like we are rejecting this. Christopher, would you care to close the pull request with a nice and constructive message for the authors?
Thanks, Joachim
Am Sonntag, den 30.09.2018, 21:08 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
I agree with rejecting. I think this should be part of a larger proposal to introduce modules.
Thanks, Richard
On Sep 30, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Christopher Allen
wrote: I think based on what transpired in this thread and on the GitHub PR, the proposal should be rejected. My reasoning:
- There was a more general way to solve the problem outlined by Simon. - The complexity doesn't pay for itself, esp. given how particular the problem it solves is.
What do y'all think? On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 10:35 AM Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
we have disagreement here. Chris, would you steer us towards consensus?
Cheers, Joachim
Am Samstag, den 23.06.2018, 23:19 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
Agreed. Beyond my posted technical reservations, I believe that a better solution is out there.
Richard
On Jun 23, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Joachim Breitner
wrote: Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2018, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen: > Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28 > > > I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of > open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall > complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.
I agree with Simon that might not take the language in the direction we want to take it.
In fact, if we had PatternSynonyms and ExplicitNamespaces back when Haskell was first specified, we might not have the T(K) syntax at all, and just a flat, explicit list of names, possibly requiring explicit namespace qualifier to disambiguate? Things like deprecating exports would have been easier then…
So while I follow the motivation of the proposal, and I don’t have concrete other solution to offer, I am inclined to reject it: The problem it is solving does not seem to be too urgent, and my gut feeling says that there might be something better down the road.
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/ _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

I've replied to and closed the ticket with reasons for rejection.
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28#issuecomment-45785700...
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:18 PM Christopher Allen
The proposal I'm reviewing is:
Bundling patterns with type synonyms by Bertram Felgenhauer and Joe Hermaszewski
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/28
Having reviewed the proposal and gone through some of the GHC Trac history, I think we should accept this proposal. There are a couple of open questions, ambiguities, and potential downsides but the overall complexity of the proposal doesn't cause me great concern.
Cheers, Chris Allen
-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
participants (5)
-
Christopher Allen
-
Joachim Breitner
-
Manuel M T Chakravarty
-
Richard Eisenberg
-
Simon Peyton Jones