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

[Vitaly Bragilevsky]

Hello,

I am in favor of this proposal. As for the name of the extension, my
suggestion is 'FlexibleImports', then we could allow even more flexibility
in import declarations in the future. Anyway, I am also ok with the current
versions (although the shorter the better).

Regards,
Vitaly

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:32 AM Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Proposal #190 is about accepting the syntax
>
>   import A.B.C qualified
>
> instead of (or in addition to) the existing syntax
>
>   import qualified A.B.C
>
> I think it's widely accepted that the original syntax was a mistake. I
> don't need to rehash the rationale for the change here, iit's described
> pretty well in the proposal and elaborated in the discussion.
>
> The question for us is really: is it worth changing? There are costs:
> - A new extension flag, which itself has costs (extra documentation, a new
> thing that people need to understand)
> - new code using the extension doesn't compile with older compilers
> - all the existing code in the world uses the old convention
> - etc.
>
> Reasonable people can differ here. The discussion on the proposal has
> representatives from both sides of the camp.
>
> Personally, the current syntax annoys me almost every day. It's already a
> small cost on everyone, and I think we need to move forwards even if there
> are costs in migrating. So, I'm going to recommend that we accept this
> proposal.
>
> We might want to reconsider the name of the extension: QualifiedImportsPostpositive
> seems like a mouthful. Perhaps ImportQualifiedPost is enough?
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 12:09, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Committee,
>>
>> this is your secretary speaking:
>>
>> Module qualified syntax
>> has been proposed by Shayne Fletcher
>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/190
>>
>> https://github.com/shayne-fletcher-da/ghc-proposals/blob/module-qualified-syntax/proposals/0000-module-qualified-syntax.rst
>>
>> Simon Marlow has already volunteered to shepherd.
>>
>> Please reach consensus as described in
>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
>> I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the
>> proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out
>> debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with
>> you.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190308/b60f1484/attachment.html>