<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">First of all, I totally agree that the proposed syntax is better.<br class=""><br class=""><div class="">However, TBH, I don’t think it is a particularly good idea to change syntactic warts by way of a language extension. If we were discussing actually changing the language definition, that would be a different matter. But we are not. We just add an alternative and potentially cause confusion.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Hence, I think, this is a bad idea.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Cheers,</div><div class="">Manuel<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 08.03.2019 um 09:31 schrieb Simon Marlow <<a href="mailto:marlowsd@gmail.com" class="">marlowsd@gmail.com</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Proposal #190 is about accepting the syntax</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> import A.B.C qualified</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">instead of (or in addition to) the existing syntax</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> import qualified A.B.C</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The question for us is really: is it worth changing? There are costs:</div><div class="">- A new extension flag, which itself has costs (extra documentation, a new thing that people need to understand)</div><div class="">- new code using the extension doesn't compile with older compilers</div><div class="">- all the existing code in the world uses the old convention</div><div class="">- etc.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Reasonable people can differ here. The discussion on the proposal has representatives from both sides of the camp.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We might want to reconsider the name of the extension: <code class="">QualifiedImportsPostpositive seems like a mouthful. Perhaps ImportQualifiedPost is enough?</code></div><div class=""><code class=""><br class=""></code></div><div class=""><code class="">Cheers</code></div><div class=""><code class="">Simon</code></div><div class=""><code class=""><br class=""></code></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 12:09, Joachim Breitner <<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" class="">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear Committee,<br class="">
<br class="">
this is your secretary speaking:<br class="">
<br class="">
Module qualified syntax<br class="">
has been proposed by Shayne Fletcher<br class="">
<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/190" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/190</a><br class="">
<a href="https://github.com/shayne-fletcher-da/ghc-proposals/blob/module-qualified-syntax/proposals/0000-module-qualified-syntax.rst" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://github.com/shayne-fletcher-da/ghc-proposals/blob/module-qualified-syntax/proposals/0000-module-qualified-syntax.rst</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Simon Marlow has already volunteered to shepherd.<br class="">
<br class="">
Please reach consensus as described in<br class="">
<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process</a><br class="">
I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the<br class="">
proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out<br class="">
debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with<br class="">
you.<br class="">
<br class="">
Thanks,<br class="">
Joachim<br class="">
-- <br class="">
Joachim Breitner<br class="">
<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" target="_blank" class="">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a><br class="">
<a href="http://www.joachim-breitner.de/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://www.joachim-breitner.de/</a><br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank" class="">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" class="">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br class="">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>