<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="">I propose we do not worry about 77-tuples. :)<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 10, 2022, at 11:35 AM, Spiwack, Arnaud <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" class="">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">This feature, while cheap, is not free. Is the improvement worth it? I find myself doubting that Haskellers not named Richard or Vlad will start writing `f (Tuple [a, b, c])` in order to avoid writing `f (type (a, b, c))`</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>But what about `f (Tuple [HList [Int], Bool])`? The alternative, `f (type (HList [Int], Bool))` has a kind error: HList is expecting a list of types, not a Type. Of course, I could use a ' to get around that kind error, but that's what we're trying to get away from.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Richard</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'm happy to be convinced. But I'm not yet.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:26 PM Simon Peyton Jones <<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" class="">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</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"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">>
Personally I’d drop TupleN/ConstraintN and accept the rest of the
proposal, but I’d love to hear more opinions. Let me know what you
think! <br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">I agree. <br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">I'm also not sure if we should have `Tuple` and `Constraints` or `Tuple` and `CTuple`. I lean to the latter.<br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 10:24, Vladislav Zavialov (int-index) <<a href="mailto:vlad.z.4096@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">vlad.z.4096@gmail.com</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="">
Richard has proposed #475 "New tuple and list syntax”. Read it here:<br class="">
<br class="">
<a href="https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/tuple-syntax/proposals/0000-tuple-syntax.rst" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/tuple-syntax/proposals/0000-tuple-syntax.rst</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Here’s some background:<br class="">
Earlier we accepted #281 "Visible 'forall' in types of terms”, which introduced, among other things, the -X(No)ListTupleTypeSyntax extension. During implementation, I discovered that this part of the proposal required further design considerations. Richard has kindly agreed to take a stab at this problem, and #475 is the result.<br class="">
<br class="">
Short summary of the proposal:<br class="">
* Introduce Tuple2, Tuple3, Tuple4, and so on, as alternative ways to write the types of tuples.<br class="">
* Introduce List as the alternative way to write the type of a list.<br class="">
* Do the same for unboxed tuples, unboxed sums, and constraint tuples.<br class="">
<br class="">
This is the core part of the proposal, for which I strongly urge acceptance.<br class="">
<br class="">
There are also other minor additions:<br class="">
* Rename -XListTupleTypeSyntax to -XListTuplePuns.<br class="">
* Introduce Tuple [a, b, c] as a more convenient way of writing Tuple3 a b c (likewise for n/=3)<br class="">
* Introduce Constraints [a, b, c] as a more convenient way of writing CTuple3 a b c (likewise for n/=3)<br class="">
* Introduce TupleN a b c as another more convenient way of writing Tuple3 a b c (likewise for n/=3)<br class="">
* Introduce CTupleN a b c as another more convenient way of writing CTuple3 a b c (likewise for n/=3)<br class="">
<br class="">
I foresee that if we don’t include Tuple/Constraints, users will end up defining their own, with different libraries exporting conflicting definitions. TupleN/ConstraintN, on the other hand, seem weakly motivated.<br class="">
<br class="">
Personally I’d drop TupleN/ConstraintN and accept the rest of the proposal, but I’d love to hear more opinions. Let me know what you think!<br class="">
<br class="">
- Vlad<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>
_______________________________________________<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>
_______________________________________________<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=""></body></html>