Proposal: Reject #44 NoIfThenElse

Hello, I'd like to propose that we reject that NoIfThenElse proposal (#44). In short, it suggests that we remove the syntactic sugar for `if-then-else` and leave to programmers to define their own version as a function. I think that this has virtually no benefits and many draw-backs, including breaking existing code, and making programs more difficult to read. Would there be any objections if I was to mark this as rejected, and close the request? -Iavor

No objections, I believe it should be rejected too.
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Iavor Diatchki
Hello,
I'd like to propose that we reject that NoIfThenElse proposal (#44). In short, it suggests that we remove the syntactic sugar for `if-then-else` and leave to programmers to define their own version as a function.
I think that this has virtually no benefits and many draw-backs, including breaking existing code, and making programs more difficult to read.
Would there be any objections if I was to mark this as rejected, and close the request?
-Iavor
_______________________________________________ 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

Agreed.
On 16 May 2017 at 18:19, Iavor Diatchki
Hello,
I'd like to propose that we reject that NoIfThenElse proposal (#44). In short, it suggests that we remove the syntactic sugar for `if-then-else` and leave to programmers to define their own version as a function.
I think that this has virtually no benefits and many draw-backs, including breaking existing code, and making programs more difficult to read.
Would there be any objections if I was to mark this as rejected, and close the request?
-Iavor
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

Completely agree. Manuel
Iavor Diatchki
: Hello,
I'd like to propose that we reject that NoIfThenElse proposal (#44). In short, it suggests that we remove the syntactic sugar for `if-then-else` and leave to programmers to define their own version as a function.
I think that this has virtually no benefits and many draw-backs, including breaking existing code, and making programs more difficult to read.
Would there be any objections if I was to mark this as rejected, and close the request?
-Iavor _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 16.05.2017, 10:19 -0700 schrieb Iavor Diatchki:
I'd like to propose that we reject that NoIfThenElse proposal (#44).
proceduraly, this is not required. This proposal never made it out of the discussion phase, and is actually “dormant” right now (together with plenty of other proposals that never made it out of the discussion procedure). While everyone is free to voice their opinions on such proposals, the comment section on the pull request is more appropriate for that. Likely, the author might eventually withdraws the proposal. Note that dormant proposals do not even show up in the “List of proposals under discussion” linked from https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals. If you are curious what actually is on the committee’s plate right now, this would be the following. Eval class https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27 Shepherd: Richard Status: This came back after being sent to the author for revision. We are waiting for Richard to make a new decision suggestion. Force Instance https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/23 Shepherd: Manuel Status: Manuel suggests rejection, which is generally agreed by the committee. Manuel, I believe you can go ahead and reject the proposal, ideally with a short rationale. UNPACK on function arguments https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/46 Shepherd: Simon Marlow Status: Awaiting a recommendation from Simon Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org

Ah, good to know, sorry for the noise. Usually, when I want to look at
the proposals I just go to the "Pull requests" tab, and I was noticing that
we are accumulating a bunch of proposals that seem to be going nowhere, so
I was thinking we could close some of them.
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Joachim Breitner
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 16.05.2017, 10:19 -0700 schrieb Iavor Diatchki:
I'd like to propose that we reject that NoIfThenElse proposal (#44).
proceduraly, this is not required. This proposal never made it out of the discussion phase, and is actually “dormant” right now (together with plenty of other proposals that never made it out of the discussion procedure). While everyone is free to voice their opinions on such proposals, the comment section on the pull request is more appropriate for that. Likely, the author might eventually withdraws the proposal.
Note that dormant proposals do not even show up in the “List of proposals under discussion” linked from https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals.
If you are curious what actually is on the committee’s plate right now, this would be the following.
Eval class https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27 Shepherd: Richard Status: This came back after being sent to the author for revision. We are waiting for Richard to make a new decision suggestion.
Force Instance https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/23 Shepherd: Manuel Status: Manuel suggests rejection, which is generally agreed by the committee. Manuel, I believe you can go ahead and reject the proposal, ideally with a short rationale.
UNPACK on function arguments https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/46 Shepherd: Simon Marlow Status: Awaiting a recommendation from Simon
Greetings, Joachim
-- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 16.05.2017, 16:46 -0700 schrieb Iavor Diatchki:
Ah, good to know, sorry for the noise. Usually, when I want to look at the proposals I just go to the "Pull requests" tab, and I was noticing that we are accumulating a bunch of proposals that seem to be going nowhere, so I was thinking we could close some of them.
I understand that urge. I occasionally ask authors to close their PRs if they are dormant, and I now marked them as dormant. I avoid simply closing the PRs for reasons of superficial friendliness. Feel free to simply ignore anything marked dormant, or Needs Revision. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
participants (5)
-
Christopher Allen
-
Iavor Diatchki
-
Joachim Breitner
-
Manuel M T Chakravarty
-
Simon Marlow