Hi, I am also happy with the proposal. The only thing I could not figure out is whether changing the COMPLETE sets to the new syntax works also in the old one. I mean, would a way to ensure compatibility with both current GHC, and GHC+this proposal to write: {-# COMPLETE … :: Either l r #-} Regards, Alejandro El 16 sept 2021 18:55:46, Joachim Breitner escribió:

Hi,

very convincing proposal, so I am happy with it.

I’ll ask a minor question about breaking existing COMPLETE pragmas on Github.

Cheers, Joachim

Am Donnerstag, dem 16.09.2021 um 19:07 +0300 schrieb Vladislav Zavialov (int-index):

Dear Committee,

Proposal #400 "COMPLETE set signatures” by Sebastian Graf has been submitted for our consideration.

Read it here: https://github.com/sgraf812/ghc-proposals/blob/constrained-complete-sigs/pro...

Discussion here: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/400

The proposal presents an alternative treatment for type annotations on COMPLETE pragmas. Today one could write

{-# COMPLETE P, Q :: Either #-}

where P and Q are some pattern synonyms. But this isn’t even well-kinded.

Instead, the author proposes that we ask our users to write

{-# COMPLETE P, Q :: Either l r #-}

By requiring a proper type on the RHS, we also gain the ability to talk about more advanced use cases (described in the proposal).

I recommend acceptance. In fact, I learned about the way these annotations are treated today only from reading the proposal, and it came as a surprise to me. Using proper, well-kinded types there, seems like the right thing to do even if we ignore the new use cases it enables.

Let me know what you think.

- Vlad

_______________________________________________

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 support acceptance as well. On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:44 PM Richard Eisenberg wrote:

I support acceptance.

Thanks! Richard

...

On Sep 16, 2021, at 12:07 PM, Vladislav Zavialov (int-index) < vlad.z.4096@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Committee,

Proposal #400 "COMPLETE set signatures” by Sebastian Graf has been submitted for our consideration.

Read it here: https://github.com/sgraf812/ghc-proposals/blob/constrained-complete-sigs/pro... Discussion here: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/400

The proposal presents an alternative treatment for type annotations on COMPLETE pragmas. Today one could write

{-# COMPLETE P, Q :: Either #-}

where P and Q are some pattern synonyms. But this isn’t even well-kinded.

Instead, the author proposes that we ask our users to write

{-# COMPLETE P, Q :: Either l r #-}

By requiring a proper type on the RHS, we also gain the ability to talk about more advanced use cases (described in the proposal).

I recommend acceptance. In fact, I learned about the way these annotations are treated today only from reading the proposal, and it came as a surprise to me. Using proper, well-kinded types there, seems like the right thing to do even if we ignore the new use cases it enables.

Let me know what you think.

- Vlad _______________________________________________ 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, I support acceptance. Vitaly чт, 23 сент. 2021 г. в 00:53, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee :

I'm in favour of #400.

Simon

PS: I am leaving Microsoft at the end of November 2021, at which point simonpj@microsoft.com will cease to work. Use simon.peytonjones@gmail.com instead. (For now, it just forwards to simonpj@microsoft.com.)

| -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee On Behalf Of Vladislav Zavialov (int-index) | Sent: 16 September 2021 17:07 | To: ghc-steering-committee | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #400: COMPLETE set | signatures; rec: accept | | Dear Committee, | | Proposal #400 "COMPLETE set signatures" by Sebastian Graf has been | submitted for our consideration. | | Read it here: | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith | ub.com%2Fsgraf812%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2Fconstrained-complete- | sigs%2Fproposals%2F0000-complete-set- | signatures.rst&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cccd12e8010 | 654946877608d9792c1a90%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63 | 7674053577434736%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV | 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=a3j3xlr4FFrJ0%2 | B6gB80Kb%2FQ%2Faxz0uDyb8HYpLYhNEBg%3D&reserved=0 | Discussion here: | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith | ub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Fpull%2F400&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Ccc | d12e8010654946877608d9792c1a90%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1% | 7C0%7C637674053577434736%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL | CJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=WPnozLD | TtXlaFkUPtyZbzGSn5%2BmpqoTRkRhoy6SJqfg%3D&reserved=0 | | The proposal presents an alternative treatment for type annotations on | COMPLETE pragmas. Today one could write | | {-# COMPLETE P, Q :: Either #-} | | where P and Q are some pattern synonyms. But this isn't even well- | kinded. | | Instead, the author proposes that we ask our users to write | | {-# COMPLETE P, Q :: Either l r #-} | | By requiring a proper type on the RHS, we also gain the ability to | talk about more advanced use cases (described in the proposal). | | I recommend acceptance. In fact, I learned about the way these | annotations are treated today only from reading the proposal, and it | came as a surprise to me. Using proper, well-kinded types there, seems | like the right thing to do even if we ignore the new use cases it | enables. | | Let me know what you think. | | - Vlad | _______________________________________________ | ghc-steering-committee mailing list | ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail | .haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering- | committee&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cccd12e801065494 | 6877608d9792c1a90%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6376740 | 53577434736%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz | IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=VeWjPT7WIwEpivqCypFm | 5RmWv%2BLTeT%2BmrQUS76UOVPw%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee