@Simon Peyton Jones What do you mean by "not sure about precise API?"? Wait for the implementation and then amend the proposal? Otherwise I'm in agreement, + QualifiedStrings: yes + QualifiedNumeric: yes, but no naturals + QualifiedLists: yes, with expectation that API will be clarified by implementation On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 12:41, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Erik for driving us towards a conclusion

- QualifiedStrings: yes - QualifiedNumerics: yes but precisely as for QualifiedDo and QualifiedStrings, i.e. without new magic for natural numbers. - QualifiedLists: yes, but I'm not sure about the precise API

I have written comments on all three threads.

If you yourself have minor reservations, can you express them on the relevant GitHub threads?

Everyone: please express your views.

Simon

On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 01:28, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

...

Dear Committee,

The original Qualified Literals proposal [1] has been split into 3 separate proposals:

* Qualfied Strings [2] * Qualified Numerics [3] * Qualified Lists [4]

Since this proposal has already been open for so long and had so much discussion, I have recommened that the committee reaches a decision by Oct 7.

I had a few minor reservations about Numerics and Lists, mainly about the fact that there are still options on how they would be implemented but have recommended all 3 are accepted.

Thanks, Erik

[1] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/698 [2] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/723 [3] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/724 [4] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/725 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/

+ QualifiedStrings: Yes + QualifiedNumeric: Yes; Naturals excluded. + QualifiedLists: Yes. On Sun, 21 Sept 2025 at 18:31, Sebastian Graf wrote:

I agree with Simon.

- For QualifiedStrings, I vote accept. - For QualifiedNumerics, I left a comment https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/725#pullrequestreview-32... arguing for just the -XQualifiedDo bits. That requires amending the proposal, so I accept conditionally on this amendment. (Which in practice means "back to the author"??) - For QualifiedLists, I left a comment https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/724#issuecomment-3315872... in order to settle the API questions that Simon raised. Also requires amending the proposal.

Am Sa., 20. Sept. 2025 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Matthías Páll Gissurarson < mpg@mpg.is>:

...

@Simon Peyton Jones

What do you mean by "not sure about precise API?"? Wait for the implementation and then amend the proposal?

Otherwise I'm in agreement, + QualifiedStrings: yes + QualifiedNumeric: yes, but no naturals + QualifiedLists: yes, with expectation that API will be clarified by implementation

On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 12:41, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Erik for driving us towards a conclusion

- QualifiedStrings: yes - QualifiedNumerics: yes but precisely as for QualifiedDo and QualifiedStrings, i.e. without new magic for natural numbers. - QualifiedLists: yes, but I'm not sure about the precise API

I have written comments on all three threads.

If you yourself have minor reservations, can you express them on the relevant GitHub threads?

Everyone: please express your views.

Simon

On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 01:28, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

...

Dear Committee,

The original Qualified Literals proposal [1] has been split into 3 separate proposals:

* Qualfied Strings [2] * Qualified Numerics [3] * Qualified Lists [4]

Since this proposal has already been open for so long and had so much discussion, I have recommened that the committee reaches a decision by Oct 7.

I had a few minor reservations about Numerics and Lists, mainly about the fact that there are still options on how they would be implemented but have recommended all 3 are accepted.

Thanks, Erik

[1] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/698 [2] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/723 [3] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/724 [4] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/725 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org

-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson http://mpg.is/ _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Hi all,

Trying to drive this forward.

The general consensus seems to be to accept QualifiedStrings. I would suggest that we accept this on October 7th unless someone yells before then.

There seems to be quite a few of reservations on QualifiedNumerics, with the main sticking point being the treatment of negative literals and natural numbers. I will consult with the proposer on this.

For QualifiedLists it seems we are even further from consensus. Again, I will consult with the proposer on this.

Hi, For the QualifiedStrings proposal I have "accept" votes from Simon Peyton Jones, Malte Ott, Matthías Páll Gissurarson, Sebastian Graf, Erik de Castro Lopo and Moritz Angermann. I have not seen a response from Simon Marlow, Eric Seidel, Arnaud Spiwack, Arnaud Spiwack or Jakob Brünker. I have CCed the ones I do have email addresses for, but have no address for Eric Seidel or Jakob Brünker. I am hoping to get the voting for QualifiedStrings done by October 7th. The other two related proposals well be sent back to the proposer for review. Thanks, Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/

Apologies that I've been struggling to find time to page all this in. I think: * QualifiedStrings is an unqualified (ha ha) "yes" and we should accept that part as-is. * QualifiedNumerics seems almost to have converged on a consensus design, with the sole remaining question being whether the desugaring uses `negate` even when NegativeLiterals is disabled. So I think we could probably accept conditionally on that change? * QualifiedLists does seem to need a little more thought. I like the general rule Sebastian proposes (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/724#issuecomment-3359455...):

If M.<stx> is syntax enabled by a -XQualified<ext> extension, then any overloaded function f in the expansion of <stx> (under XOverloaded<ext>, if that exists) will be rebound to M.f instead.

When RebindableSyntax is in effect, then any overloaded function f in

Ideally we'd extend this rule to RebindableSyntax as well, something like: the expansion of <stx> will be rebound to whatever f is in scope. This means everything behaves simply and predictably. The downside is that we are constrained by the existing design (of overloaded numerics/lists in particular), so we may not want to enforce this as a hard rule immediately, but I think we can treat it as a goal to aim for, and think about suitable migration strategies for getting to that point without an unreasonable level of breakage. Cheers, Adam On 03/10/2025 07:23, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

...

Hi all,

Trying to drive this forward.

The general consensus seems to be to accept QualifiedStrings. I would suggest that we accept this on October 7th unless someone yells before then.

There seems to be quite a few of reservations on QualifiedNumerics, with the main sticking point being the treatment of negative literals and natural numbers. I will consult with the proposer on this.

For QualifiedLists it seems we are even further from consensus. Again, I will consult with the proposer on this.

Hi,

For the QualifiedStrings proposal I have "accept" votes from Simon Peyton Jones, Malte Ott, Matthías Páll Gissurarson, Sebastian Graf, Erik de Castro Lopo and Moritz Angermann.

I have not seen a response from Simon Marlow, Eric Seidel, Arnaud Spiwack, Arnaud Spiwack or Jakob Brünker. I have CCed the ones I do have email addresses for, but have no address for Eric Seidel or Jakob Brünker.

I am hoping to get the voting for QualifiedStrings done by October 7th.

The other two related proposals well be sent back to the proposer for review.

Thanks, Erik

-- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/ Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England

Yes on qualified strings from me as well. On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 3:47 AM Arnaud Spiwack wrote:

I vote yes for qualified strings (apologies, I thought I already had).

On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 at 05:28, Adam Gundry wrote:

...

Apologies that I've been struggling to find time to page all this in. I think:

* QualifiedStrings is an unqualified (ha ha) "yes" and we should accept that part as-is.

* QualifiedNumerics seems almost to have converged on a consensus design, with the sole remaining question being whether the desugaring uses `negate` even when NegativeLiterals is disabled. So I think we could probably accept conditionally on that change?

* QualifiedLists does seem to need a little more thought.

I like the general rule Sebastian proposes ( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/724#issuecomment-3359455... ):

...

If M.<stx> is syntax enabled by a -XQualified<ext> extension, then any overloaded function f in the expansion of <stx> (under XOverloaded<ext>, if that exists) will be rebound to M.f instead.

Ideally we'd extend this rule to RebindableSyntax as well, something like:

...

When RebindableSyntax is in effect, then any overloaded function f in the expansion of <stx> will be rebound to whatever f is in scope.

This means everything behaves simply and predictably. The downside is that we are constrained by the existing design (of overloaded numerics/lists in particular), so we may not want to enforce this as a hard rule immediately, but I think we can treat it as a goal to aim for, and think about suitable migration strategies for getting to that point without an unreasonable level of breakage.

Cheers,

Adam

On 03/10/2025 07:23, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

...

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

...

Hi all,

Trying to drive this forward.

The general consensus seems to be to accept QualifiedStrings. I would suggest that we accept this on October 7th unless someone yells before then.

There seems to be quite a few of reservations on QualifiedNumerics, with the main sticking point being the treatment of negative literals and natural numbers. I will consult with the proposer on this.

For QualifiedLists it seems we are even further from consensus. Again, I will consult with the proposer on this.

Hi,

For the QualifiedStrings proposal I have "accept" votes from Simon Peyton Jones, Malte Ott, Matthías Páll Gissurarson, Sebastian Graf, Erik de Castro Lopo and Moritz Angermann.

I have not seen a response from Simon Marlow, Eric Seidel, Arnaud Spiwack, Arnaud Spiwack or Jakob Brünker. I have CCed the ones I do have email addresses for, but have no address for Eric Seidel or Jakob Brünker.

I am hoping to get the voting for QualifiedStrings done by October 7th.

The other two related proposals well be sent back to the proposer for review.

Thanks, Erik

-- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/

Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org

-- Arnaud Spiwack Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io. _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org

Hi Erik, Thanks for resolving these proposals. It's helpful if you can also comment on the GitHub PRs with the current status and update the labels accordingly. In particular: - Where revisions are requested we should make sure it is clear what needs to be resolved before the proposal is ready to be resubmitted. (I'm not sure if that is clear to Brandon in this case?) - Where the proposal is accepted, there are a bunch of steps to follow listed at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/acceptance.rst (but I can take care of these, I just hadn't previously spotted that the decision had been made). Cheers, Adam On 07/10/2025 10:04, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Hi all,

On the QualifiedStrings proposal I have received an accept vote from everyone except Eric Siedel so we should consdier this proposal accepted. The other two related proposals have been sent back to the proposer for revision. I have up updated the Spreadsheet as above.

Is there anything else I need to do? I have CC Brandom Chin the proposer.

Thanks, Erik

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

...

Hi all,

Trying to drive this forward.

The general consensus seems to be to accept QualifiedStrings. I would suggest that we accept this on October 7th unless someone yells before then.

There seems to be quite a few of reservations on QualifiedNumerics, with the main sticking point being the treatment of negative literals and natural numbers. I will consult with the proposer on this.

For QualifiedLists it seems we are even further from consensus. Again, I will consult with the proposer on this.

Cheers, Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/

-- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/ Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England