[ghc-steering-committee] #195: Make Q (TExp a) into a newtype, rec: accept

[Richard Eisenberg]

Yes, I agree that we need functions in both directions. I support this proposal.

Richard

> On Mar 8, 2019, at 12:03 PM, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree that we should probably accept this.
> 
> I wonder if there are cases where one might one to go in the other direction, i.e., do we also need a function:  `Code a -> Q (TExp a)`?
> 
> -Iavor
> 
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:51 AM Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>> wrote:
> Yes, I agree.
> 
>  
> 
> Simon
> 
>  
> 
> From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org>> On Behalf Of Vitaly Bragilevsky
> Sent: 08 March 2019 06:41
> To: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>>
> Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] #195: Make Q (TExp a) into a newtype, rec: accept
> 
>  
> 
> Hi everyone, 
> 
>  
> 
> Matthew Pickering proposed to make Q (TExp a) into a newtype called Code. 
> 
> Proposal #195: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/22e97d7693edb0b3676c948a123e57ea93c462e3/proposals/0000-code-texp.rst <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2F22e97d7693edb0b3676c948a123e57ea93c462e3%2Fproposals%2F0000-code-texp.rst&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C283dee8b70474ae9761308d6a3910fb5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636876240764020521&sdata=Cq32fdykV9oonakOOFbAnV7LulmupHXHq0p2c9raKFs%3D&reserved=0>
> Pull request discussion: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/195 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F195&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C283dee8b70474ae9761308d6a3910fb5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636876240764030529&sdata=6CqagCiMbgVgSgmWeLTcDbauGsB111fn7DOyuMiXemI%3D&reserved=0>
>  
> 
> It looks like the motivation behind this proposal boils down to the convenience of writing instances which seems a good thing. The minor problem I see is the proposed name "Code" as it looks a little bit too abstract for Typed Template Haskell expressions. Nevertheless, I recommend to accept the proposal as it is. Silence is understood as agreement.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Vitaly
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee <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/20190308/231f3a4a/attachment.html>