
Hello, it seems that there isn't much controversy over the TupleSections propsal, so I'd like to move the we accept it for the next language standard. Does anyone have any objections? -Iavor

"ID" == Iavor Diatchki
writes:
ID> it seems that there isn't much controversy over the TupleSections propsal, ID> so I'd like to move the we accept it for the next language standard. No objection here. -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

+1
On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:42 PM, John Wiegley
wrote: "ID" == Iavor Diatchki
writes: ID> it seems that there isn't much controversy over the TupleSections propsal, ID> so I'd like to move the we accept it for the next language standard.
No objection here.
-- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2 _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

On 2016-10-12 12:41 PM, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
it seems that there isn't much controversy over the TupleSections propsal, so I'd like to move the we accept it for the next language standard.
Does anyone have any objections?
I have no objection to the proposal in the abstract, but I don't think the concrete proposal is completely fleshed out. I'd prefer to see the actual modifications to Haskell 2010 grammar, at least, before the final vote. The above comment should really be in the RFCs repository, attached to the proposal. Is that doable?
participants (4)
-
Iavor Diatchki
-
John Wiegley
-
Mario Blažević
-
Richard Eisenberg