What should we start with?
Hi, good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up. I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started on? There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism and OverloadedRecordFields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/labels/Pending%20committee%20... According to our process documents, this label setting should have already triggered our part of the process! We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example * Optional tuple parenthesization <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/19> * Stack pointer stuff <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/17> and others. I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move forward (or abandon). 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
What's the most ready for discussion or implementation in your estimation? On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
Hi,
good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started on?
There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism and OverloadedRecordFields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/labels/Pending%20committee%20... According to our process documents, this label setting should have already triggered our part of the process!
We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example * Optional tuple parenthesization <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/19> * Stack pointer stuff <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/17> and others. I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move forward (or abandon).
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
-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
I thought the Levity Polymorphism one (i.e, make the representation of unboxed tuples more fine grained) is a fairly straight one, so perhaps we should start with it? On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Christopher Allen <cma@bitemyapp.com> wrote:
What's the most ready for discussion or implementation in your estimation?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
Hi,
good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started on?
There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism and OverloadedRecordFields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/ labels/Pending%20committee%20review According to our process documents, this label setting should have already triggered our part of the process!
We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example * Optional tuple parenthesization <https://github.com/ghc- proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/19> * Stack pointer stuff <https://github.com/ghc- proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/17> and others. I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move forward (or abandon).
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
-- 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
Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> writes:
Hi,
good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started on?
Hmm, I sent a message to the list on this matter earlier this week; did it get lost along the way? Cheers, - Ben
I wasn't signed up and didn't know its existence until 2 days ago. (Attached) On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Ben Gamari <ben@well-typed.com> wrote:
Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> writes:
Hi,
good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up.
I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started on?
Hmm, I sent a message to the list on this matter earlier this week; did it get lost along the way?
Cheers,
- Ben
_______________________________________________ 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'd like to suggest that we ADOPT - Update levity polymorphism - Constraint vs type for 8.2. They are very well advanced (the former is in HEAD); they tidy up a swamp of bugs; and they are a clear step forward from where we are today. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee- | bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 19 January 2017 04:27 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with? | | Hi, | | good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up. | | I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all | of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started | on? | | There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism | and OverloadedRecordFields | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c | om%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Flabels%2FPending%2520committee%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Csimo | npj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af | 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474183335&sdata=0c0zB1j4wztdCRzYUwbKR | HjygAkZ4kZD2Xx1q9Hz5vQ%3D&reserved=0 | According to our process documents, this label setting should have | already triggered our part of the process! | | We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while | (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example | * Optional tuple parenthesization | <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub. | com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Fpull%2F19&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538 | 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620 | 3968474183335&sdata=LKvWS5wWZirzoT4WrR1M8KR0WyXUSTlIhBAkm5eb2h4%3D&reserv | ed=0> | * Stack pointer stuff | <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub. | com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Fpull%2F17&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538 | 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620 | 3968474183335&sdata=y897Px1tIgvuypmksVz%2FmSjHS3JEmfWFMQut1I%2BZ6mM%3D&re | served=0> | and others. | I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move forward | (or abandon). | | Greetings, | Joachim | | -- | Joachim “nomeata” Breitner | mail@joachim-breitner.de • | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joac | him- | breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb85381547413 | 91708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474 | 183335&sdata=4fjS%2FYqv7JpLQYafkod66veFw5nKDw8kG%2BRNK09NIB0%3D&reserved= | 0 | XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F | Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org
On Jan 19, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:
I'd like to suggest that we ADOPT
- Update levity polymorphism - Constraint vs type
I second this, if I'm allowed to vote... Note that the alternate ideas in Constraint vs type are worthwhile discussion and may still happen in the future. Implementing as proposed does not bar the way to future improvements. Richard
Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> writes:
I'd like to suggest that we ADOPT
- Update levity polymorphism - Constraint vs type
for 8.2. They are very well advanced (the former is in HEAD); they tidy up a swamp of bugs; and they are a clear step forward from where we are today.
For the record I agree here; both proposals are well-considered and patch up issues which actively impede some legitimate uses of TypeInType. Do we have objections to adoption? Cheers, - Ben
No objections with the understanding that I'll still file a bug if something like the 8.0 RC comes up again. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Ben Gamari <ben@well-typed.com> wrote:
Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> writes:
I'd like to suggest that we ADOPT
- Update levity polymorphism - Constraint vs type
for 8.2. They are very well advanced (the former is in HEAD); they tidy up a swamp of bugs; and they are a clear step forward from where we are today.
For the record I agree here; both proposals are well-considered and patch up issues which actively impede some legitimate uses of TypeInType.
Do we have objections to adoption?
Cheers,
- Ben
_______________________________________________ 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
Christopher Allen <cma@bitemyapp.com> writes:
No objections with the understanding that I'll still file a bug if something like the 8.0 RC comes up again.
Of course, I would hope you would! We don't want to sacrifice ease-of-use in the common cases in the name of these cleanups. Cheers, - Ben
+1
Am 20.01.2017 um 10:08 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com>:
I'd like to suggest that we ADOPT
- Update levity polymorphism - Constraint vs type
for 8.2. They are very well advanced (the former is in HEAD); they tidy up a swamp of bugs; and they are a clear step forward from where we are today.
Simon
| -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee- | bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 19 January 2017 04:27 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with? | | Hi, | | good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up. | | I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all | of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started | on? | | There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism | and OverloadedRecordFields | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c | om%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Flabels%2FPending%2520committee%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Csimo | npj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af | 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474183335&sdata=0c0zB1j4wztdCRzYUwbKR | HjygAkZ4kZD2Xx1q9Hz5vQ%3D&reserved=0 | According to our process documents, this label setting should have | already triggered our part of the process! | | We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while | (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example | * Optional tuple parenthesization | <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub. | com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Fpull%2F19&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538 | 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620 | 3968474183335&sdata=LKvWS5wWZirzoT4WrR1M8KR0WyXUSTlIhBAkm5eb2h4%3D&reserv | ed=0> | * Stack pointer stuff | <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub. | com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Fpull%2F17&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538 | 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620 | 3968474183335&sdata=y897Px1tIgvuypmksVz%2FmSjHS3JEmfWFMQut1I%2BZ6mM%3D&re | served=0> | and others. | I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move forward | (or abandon). | | Greetings, | Joachim | | -- | Joachim “nomeata” Breitner | mail@joachim-breitner.de • | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joac | him- | breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb85381547413 | 91708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474 | 183335&sdata=4fjS%2FYqv7JpLQYafkod66veFw5nKDw8kG%2BRNK09NIB0%3D&reserved= | 0 | 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
I propose that we adopt the overloaded record field proposal too. I've just re-read it -- it's nice. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee- | bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 19 January 2017 04:27 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] What should we start with? | | Hi, | | good to have a mailing list, thanks to whoever set it up. | | I would like to see us warming up by handling a first proposal before all | of us forget that we are on this committee. Which should we get started | on? | | There are two that have the “Pending review” label: Levity Polymorphism | and OverloadedRecordFields | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c | om%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Flabels%2FPending%2520committee%2520review&data=02%7C01%7Csimo | npj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af | 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474183335&sdata=0c0zB1j4wztdCRzYUwbKR | HjygAkZ4kZD2Xx1q9Hz5vQ%3D&reserved=0 | According to our process documents, this label setting should have | already triggered our part of the process! | | We could also look for proposals that have not been updated in a while | (you can sort by that in the issue list) for example | * Optional tuple parenthesization | <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub. | com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Fpull%2F19&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538 | 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620 | 3968474183335&sdata=LKvWS5wWZirzoT4WrR1M8KR0WyXUSTlIhBAkm5eb2h4%3D&reserv | ed=0> | * Stack pointer stuff | <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub. | com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc- | proposals%2Fpull%2F17&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb8538 | 154741391708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63620 | 3968474183335&sdata=y897Px1tIgvuypmksVz%2FmSjHS3JEmfWFMQut1I%2BZ6mM%3D&re | served=0> | and others. | I pinged a few random old proposals and asked them to maybe move forward | (or abandon). | | Greetings, | Joachim | | -- | Joachim “nomeata” Breitner | mail@joachim-breitner.de • | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joac | him- | breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc611cb85381547413 | 91708d4402376e7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636203968474 | 183335&sdata=4fjS%2FYqv7JpLQYafkod66veFw5nKDw8kG%2BRNK09NIB0%3D&reserved= | 0 | XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F | Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org
Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> writes:
I propose that we adopt the overloaded record field proposal too. I've just re-read it -- it's nice.
My only question with the ORF proposal is how it interacts with record pattern synonyms, as I pointed out on the pull request. I do wish that there was a clearer story for practical polymorphic update, but if Adam says that this should be compatible with the current proposal then so be it. I also vote to adopt. Cheers, - Ben
participants (7)
-
Ben Gamari -
Christopher Allen -
Iavor Diatchki -
Joachim Breitner -
Manuel M T Chakravarty -
Richard Eisenberg -
Simon Peyton Jones