On 10/06/2015 01:32 PM, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Dear all,
[--snip--]
While we can discuss the extent of additional breakage MRP would cause, the fact remains it is a further breaking change. A survey of breakage to books as Herbert did is certainly valuable (thanks!), but much breakage will (effectively) remain unquantifiable.
This is an argument from FUD. If it's unquantifiable then it can (almost by definition) neither count for nor against, can it?
It is also clear from the discussions over the last couple of weeks, on the Haskell libraries list as well as various other forums and social media, that MRP is highly contentions.
Indeed.
This begs two questions:
1. Is the Haskell Libraries list and informal voting process really an appropriate, or even acceptable, way to adopt such far-reaching changes to what effectively amounts to Haskell itself?
I don't think that was ever the idea. (See other the other post by Erik.)
2. Why the hurry to push MRP through?
Personally, I don't think there's much need to push the actual *breaking* change through, but I *do* think that deprecation warnings should go in as quickly as possible. [--snip--]
This brings us to question 2. Now that HaskellPrime is being resurrected, why the hurry to push MRP through? Surely HaskellPrime is the forum where breaking changes like MRP should be discussed, allowing as much time as is necessary and allowing for an as wide range of perspectives as possible to properly be taken into account?
Isn't that what we're trying to do on this very thread?
The need to "field test" MRP prior to discussing it in HaskellPrime has been mentioned. Graham and I are very sceptical. In the past, at least in the past leading up to Haskell 2010 or so, the community at large was not roped in as involuntary field testers.
It seems to me that the community *is* being involved rather than being, as you say, "involuntary field testers". (Again: see the very existence of this thread). Perhaps we should also be discussing what, exactly, is meant by "community". It seems people have different ideas about that. (For myself, I would certainly presume that being a member of the community would include following along on at least a few mailing lists or reddit or *somewhere* where all things Haskell get discussed.)
If MRP is pushed through now, with a resurrection of HaskellPrime being imminent, Graham and I strongly believe that risks coming across to a very large part of the Haskell community as preempting proper process by facing the new HaskellPrime committee with (yet another) fait accompli.
Therefore, please let us defer further discussion and ultimate decision on MRP to the resurrected HaskellPrime committee, which is where it properly belongs. Otherwise, the Haskell community itself might be one of the things that MRP breaks.
As I've certainly mentioned in this thread, the previous committee didn't actually accomplish very much [1]. I also note that much of what they *did* get through was actually mostly already field-tested in GHC beforehand. (So there goes that argument, I guess.) Regards, [1] Though what they did accomplish is very much appreciated. Here's the list linked from the Wiki page: https://prime.haskell.org/query?state=accepted&milestone=Haskell+2010&order=priority