[ghc-steering-committee] #190: Module qualified syntax, recommendation: accept

[Simon Marlow]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 08:00, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> it looks like we agree on accepting this with a pragma, but need to
> decide upon the pragma. We had these options:
>
>  * FlexibleImports
>  * QualifiedLast
>  * QualifiedImportsPostpositive
>  * ImportQualifiedPost
>
> Simon M, as the shepherd, care to make a final recommendation about the
> pragma and/or ask the authors to come up with one (and amend the
> proposal)?
>

Sometimes I just want someone else to choose the actual syntax while I
scowl slightly and accept it :-)

Ok, would anyone be vigorously against ImportQualifiedPost?

(on "FlexibleImports" I'm not very keen on adding an extension flag that we
explicitly intend to mean different things in the future. That's just a way
of getting around the extension flag policy. Either we think it's a good
idea to have flags for every extension, or we don't. Yes I know we've
discussed this in the past and there are grey areas, and we do already
change the meaning of extensions sometimes. But pre-allocating a bucket for
an unknown set of future extensions seems like a step too far to me.)

Cheers
Simon



>
> Cheers,
> Joachim
> --
> Joachim Breitner
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de
>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20190422/b3874551/attachment.html>