New subject: Shall the Haskell Report remain in LaTeX?

7 Sep 2017

      Sending to the mailing list instead of to Herbert alone...

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel 
wrote:

Hello!
...
On 2017-09-07 at 18:16:39 +0200, Mario Blazevic wrote:
...
...
Btw, here's an old commit which updates the class diagram to this
effect for the report:
https://github.com/hvr/haskell-report/commit/
339ea257ee8b0451fbba388480566efac6ecbbd3
Ha, I wasn't aware of that repository.
I set up the hvr/haskell-report fork[1] shortly after I migrated and set
up the haskell/haskell-report repo back in 2015 to serve as an "updated"
inofficial Haskell201x report...
While looking through the report it became apparent to me that more
updates may be needed, and that a new Haskell Prime committee was needed
because such an inofficial Haskell report wouldn't provide the desired
authority of a properly produced language standard, and you know the
rest... :-)
That looks farsighted for sure.
...
...
We agreed today to move the report itself to the
https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/ repository.
Ok, so how does this change the procedure described at
https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/blob/master/README.rst#succe
ssful-proposals
?
I think the only necessary change is to the strangely worded clause

   - No one is appointed responsible for actually implementing the change,
   in particular neither the shepherd nor the author of the proposal.

I'd go with some alternative wording like

   - The successful proposal should include a complete delta to the text of
   The Haskell Report that can be automatically merged.
...
And what is the intended relationship between the haskell/rfcs and the
haskell/haskell-report repos?
...
Should we move the build system around it as well? I'd say probably
not, leave the haskell/haskell-report repository the canonical one and
update it from haskell/rfcs/ once we're ready to publish.
Well, depends... the build-system is a bit incomplete as it only tests
that TeX still builds, the intention was to provide a CI system which
publishes its draft aftifacts somewhere for convenient previewing. And
if I understand this correctly, you intend to have RFCs be accompanied
by deltas to the report in the same repository; and if that's the case I
think the build-system makes a lot of sense to duplicate in the
haskell/rfcs repo.
I'm not familiar with the build system, so I'll trust your judgement on
this. The only reason for my earlier choice is that haskell/haskell-report
sounds like a proper cannonical place for the official Haskell Report, much
more so than haskell/rfcs.
...
If the report was written in reStructuredText we could simply use
something like the readthedocs.org service. But since it's LaTeX, we
have to do a little bit more work to publishes ("deploys" in newspeak)
.pdf drafts somewhere else, but it's doable.
I can take care to set it up, if it's clear what kind of CI/CD we want.
...
Is the current publishing system really that difficult? To my grizzled
ears, this sounds like you're fishing for a volunteer to translate LaTeX to
ReST. I'd actually be willing to do that, as I have plenty of experience
with text transformations, but I'd need a buy-in from everybody.
...
...
I wish GitHub made it possible to symlink files in two repositories
like this.
I wouldn't worry too much about that... we can cross that bridge when
we're close to a report worth publishing :-)

...
Cheers,
  HVR

Re: Remove eq and show from num class

Mario Blazevic

Herbert Valerio Riedel

Carter Schonwald

Mario Blažević

Nicolas Wu

Mario Blažević

Doaitse Swierstra

John Wiegley

Carter Schonwald

Henrik Nilsson

tags

participants (9)