
<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 have raised what may be an important technical objection: <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/515#issuecomment-1239289647" class="">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/515#issuecomment-1239289647</a><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I like the spirit of this proposal, but it may be out of reach given my linked post. Curious for others' thoughts -- I hope my objection is ill-founded!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Richard</div><div class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 23, 2022, at 4:54 AM, Spiwack, Arnaud <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" class="">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">I don't have much of an opinion on this proposal.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I do believe that, in the current state, it doesn't discuss in sufficient detail about whether instances should be considered coherent or not by the compiler. This seems to be the most non-trivial choice in the proposal. I've asked for an addition to that respect on the Github thread.<br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:58 PM Tom Harding <<a href="mailto:i.am.tom.harding@gmail.com" class="">i.am.tom.harding@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 style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class="">Hi all,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/515" target="_blank" class="">Ollie Charles’ proposal</a> removes the restrictions placed on HasField instances. Close to my heart, this addresses the problem of creating custom `HasField` instances for record types. I’m in favour of this proposal as it would solve some issues I have encountered, but the floor is open for discussion.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class="">Tom</div></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=""></div></body></html>